This case was heard in the New Brunswick Provincial Court.

Mr. Acker was charged with violating the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act by failing to produce a hunting license. The game wardens asked Mr. Acker for his provincial hunting license, which he did not have. Instead, Mr. Acker offered a card that identified him as a member of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, as well as a document entitled "Treaty Implementation Management and Beneficiary Entitlement Regime - Deer Permit 01218". 

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It also specifies that for the purposes of the Constitution, Aboriginal people are Indian, Métis, or Inuit. In this case, Mr. Acker argued that he had an Aboriginal right to harvest wildlife that was protected by section 35. He attempted to prove that he qualified for Aboriginal rights because he was an Indian person of Mi’kmaw descent. 

Mr. Acker did not have Indian status under the Indian Act and he was not a member of a recognized Band. This meant that he had to prove he was Indian for the purposes of the Constitution Act, 1982 by passing a legal test set by the Supreme Court of Canada. This test required Mr. Acker to prove self-identification as an Indian, ancestral connection to an Aboriginal people, and acceptance in an Aboriginal community. The Court found that Mr. Acker could only prove his ancestral connection, so the Court decided that Mr. Acker failed the test and was not an Indian for the purposes of the Constitution Act, 1982. As such, the Court decided that Mr. Acker could not prove that he had an Aboriginal right harvest wildlife. 

Mr. Acker was found guilty.

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2004/2004nbpc24/2004nbpc24.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.