R v McCoy, 1993 CanLII 9345 (NB CA)

This case was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and was a request for leave to appeal the decision in R v McCoy, 1992 CanLII 6298 (NB QB), which itself was an appeal of the decision in R v McCoy, 1991 CanLII 12196 (NB PC).

Prior to this case, Mr. McCoy had been acquitted of the charge of “hunting with the aid of a light” in violation of section 33(i)(b) of the New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act. The Crown had appealed this acquittal to the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, which dismissed the appeal and upheld Mr. McCoy’s acquittal. The Court of Queen’s Bench had decided that Mr. McCoy had successfully proved that he had Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt. It also decided that section 33(i)(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Act violated these rights because it placed regulations on Indigenous groups’ right to hunt without first consulting with these groups. In the present case, the Crown sought leave to appeal the Court of Queen’s Bench decision. This means that they were asking the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to hear and decide on the case. 

The focus of the appeal ultimately fell to the question of whether night hunting using a light (otherwise known as deer jacking) was a valid exercise of the respondent’s Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Court found the historic record supported the notion that the hunting rights were to be exercised “in a non-injurious manner, a non-threatening manner” to people living within the province. Based on this, the Court decided that although Mr. McCoy had Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, this right had to be exercised in a safe manner. It decided that hunting at night with a light was unsafe. This meant that Mr. McCoy had been exercising his rights in an unsafe manner, which he was not allowed to do. 

The Court granted leave to appeal. 

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/1993/1993canlii9345/1993canlii9345.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.