R v Labillois, 2005 NBQB 384 (CanLII)

The case was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division.

Mr. Labillois was charged with hunting moose during the closed season, which violated section 32(1)(a) of the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act. Mr. Labillois argued that he had an Aboriginal right to hunt under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 

 Prior to this case, the trial judge had decided that Mr. Labillois could prove he had an Aboriginal right to hunt in the area where he had been found and acquitted him. In the current case, the Crown appealed the trial judge’s decision. The Crown accepted the trial judge’s decision that Mr. Labillois could prove he had Aboriginal rights but argued that the judge had erred in deciding that Mr. Labillois specifically had the right to hunt in the area where he had been found. 

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It also defines Aboriginal people as being Indian, Métis, or Inuit. Mr. Labillois was Mi’kmaq and had Indian status under the Indian Act. Because Mr. Labillois had status, the trial judge accepted that Mr. Labillois qualified for Aboriginal rights under section 35. The main issue was whether Mr. Labillois could prove that he specifically had the right to hunt where he had been found. The trial judge held that Mr. Labillois could only exercise his Aboriginal right to hunt in an area where his Indigenous community had traditionally hunted. This meant Mr. Labillois had to show that the moose was shot in traditional Mi’kmaw hunting grounds in order to avoid conviction. The trial judge had ruled that the shooting did occur within the traditional hunting grounds and found Mr. Labillois not guilty.

In this case, the Crown appealed the trial judge’s decision. It argued the trial judge had erred in deciding that the shooting had occurred within traditional Mi’kmaw hunting grounds. After reconsidering the testimony of two experts, the Court found that the trial judge was correct in finding that Mr. Labillois had been hunting in an area where his community traditionally hunted.

The appeal was dismissed. 

This decision was later appeal in R v Labillois, 2006 NBCA 68 (CanLII).

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2005/2005nbqb384/2005nbqb384.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.