R v Labillois, 2006 NBCA 68 (CanLII)

This case was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. 

Mr. Labillois was charged with unlawfully hunting moose during the closed season in violation of section 32(1)(a) of the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act. The trial judge had acquitted Mr. Labillious in R v Labillois, 2005 NBQB 384 (CanLII). This acquittal had been upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench. In the current case, the Crown appealed that decision.

The main question in this appeal was whether the trial judge had incorrectly assigned the burden of proof (which party was responsible for establishing whether or not Mr. Labillois had a treaty right to hunt moose in the closed season). The trial judge decided that Mr. Labillois had a treaty right to hunt moose in the closed season and acquitted him. The Crown appealed this decision to the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench. The Crown argued that the trial judge had arrived at her decision to acquit Mr. Labillois by incorrectly assigning the Crown the burden of proving that Mr. Labillois did not have a treaty right, when in reality Mr. Labillois should have been responsible for proving that he did have a treaty right. In that appeal, the court decided that the trial judge had not incorrectly assigned the burden of proof. In the current case, the Crown appealed that decision. 

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had in fact incorrectly assigned the burden of proof. The burden of proof was on Mr. Labillois to prove on a balance of probabilities that he did have a treaty right to hunt moose in the closed season. However, the Court determined that the trial judge had arrived at her decision by holding that the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Labillois did not have a treaty right. 

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside Mr. Labillois’ acquittal, and ordered a new trial. 

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/2006/2006nbca68/2006nbca68.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.