This case was heard in the New Brunswick Provincial Court.

The defendant, Mr. Daniel Daigle, was charged with violating section 23(1.1)(b) of Regulation 82-103 of the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act by possessing a trout that was more than 30 centimeters long but less than 36 centimeters long. In response, Mr. Daigle argued that he was exempt from these regulations because he had Aboriginal and treaty rights to fish which were protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. It also defines Aboriginal people as being Indian, Métis, or Inuit. For Mr. Daigle to prove that he had protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, he had to prove that he was Aboriginal for the purposes of section 35. To do this, Mr. Daigle argued that he was Métis. 

The Court decided that to prove he was Métis for the purposes of section 35, Mr. Daigle had to prove three things. First, Mr. Daigle had to prove that an historic Métis community had existed in either Papineau Falls or Rough Waters, New Brunswick. He also had to prove that there was a present-day Métis community in Rough Waters which had a link with the historic Métis community. Finally, he had to prove that was a member of the present-day Métis community because he had Métis ancestry and was active in the community.

The Court decided that Mr. Daigle was unable to show enough evidence to prove that he was Métis for the purposes of section 35. The Court decided that Mr. Daigle could not prove that an historic Métis community had existed in Papineau Falls or Rough Waters. The Court also decided that Mr. Daigle could not prove that there was a modern Métis community in New Brunswick. Finally, the Court decided that Mr. Daigle could not prove that he was a member of a modern Métis community. Mr. Daigle was a member of the East Coast First Peoples Alliance Association, but the Court decided this was not enough to establish that Mr. Daigle was an active participant in a Métis organization. The Court also decided that Mr. Daigle could not prove he belonged to a modern Métis community because he did not have a sufficient ancestral link to the Métis. There was a ten-generation separation between Daigle and his closest full-blooded Aboriginal ancestor. The Court decided that Mr. Daigle could not prove he was Métis based on this lineage. 

The Court also decided that even if Mr. Daigle had met the requirements for being protected by section 35, the infringement of his Aboriginal rights would have been justified because the purpose of the regulations was to conserve the trout population.

Mr. Daigle was found guilty. This decision was later appealed in R v Daigle, 2004 NBQB 79 (CanLII).

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2003/2003nbpc4/2003nbpc4.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.