R v Marshall, 2001 CanLII 4996 (NSSC)
This issue was heard in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and it followed the decision in R v Marshall, 2001 NSPC 2.
The applicants were convicted at trial of cutting and removing timber from Crown lands without authorization, which was an offence under section 29 of Nova Scotia's Crown Lands Act. All of the applicants were Mi'kmaq, and at trial they had asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights that gave them authority to cut timber as they had done.
The applicants appealed their convictions. When they did, the Acting Director of Nova Scotia's Public Prosecution Service appointed a lawyer who was employed by the provincial Department of Justice to conduct the appeal.
The applicants applied for judicial review of the Acting Director's decision to appoint the Department of Justice Lawyer, and they argued that the decision was illegal because it undercut the Public Prosecution Service's independence from the provincial Attorney General. Additional motions for discovery were made, and the procedural questions that were being raised caused considerable disagreement between the applicants and the provincial Crown.
Before the application for judicial review went forward, the Court considered whether the applicants had raised an issue that the Court had authority to consider. Ultimately, the Court held that the applicants had raised an issue that a Court could properly consider, and so it allowed the application for judicial review to go forward.
Following this application, the issues raised at trial were brought before the courts again in: R v Marshall, 2001 NSSC 157, R v Marshall (SF), 2002 NSSC 57, R v Marshall, 2002 NSSC 233, R v Marshall, 2003 NSCA 105, and R v Marshall; R v Bernard, [2005] 2 SCR 220, 2005 SCC 43.
View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2001/2001canlii4996/2001canlii4996.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.