This case was heard in the New Brunswick Provincial Court. 

The Defendant, Eymard Chiasson, was charged with hunting moose with a snare and hunting bear with a trap which were activities prohibited by New Brunswick's Fish and Wildlife Act. In his defence, Mr. Chiasson argued that he was of Mi'kmaw descent and a member of the "Mi'kmaq First Nation", and that he had Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt as he had done.

Mr. Chiasson did not have status under the Indian Act, and so in order to determine whether Mr. Chiasson could assert Aboriginal and treaty rights that were protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Court assessed whether Mr. Chiasson self-identified as an Aboriginal person, had an ancestral connection to Aboriginal persons, and could show that he was accepted by an existing Aboriginal community. 

Ultimately, the Court held that although Mr. Chiasson self-identified as Aboriginal and was the descendant of Aboriginal ancestors (with the closest one being five generations back), those facts in and of themselves were not enough to establish that he was "Aboriginal" for the purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court held that Mr. Chiasson could not demonstrate his connection to an existing Aboriginal community, and that his membership in the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council and attendance at public pow wows two or three times a year was not enough. 

For these reasons, the Court held that Mr. Chiasson was guilty of the offences with which he was charged.

Mr. Chiasson appealed the Court's decision in R. v Chiasson, 2018 CanLII 79786 (NB CA).

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2012/2012nbpc14/2012nbpc14.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.