This hearing took place in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, following the decisions in R v Polches, 2003 CarswellNB 670, R v Polches, 2005 NBQB 137, and R. v. Polches et al., 2006 NBCA 50, and Richard Polches, Jason Brooks and Jeffrey Polches v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2007 CanLII 1153 (SCC).

Richard Polches, Jeffrey Poliches, and Jason Books had been charged with the offence of unlawfully hunting wildlife at night with a light, which is an activity prohibited by New Brunswick's Fish and Wildlife Act. At trial, the three accuseds had asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt as they had done, and they were acquitted as a result. Their acquital was upheld by the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, but when the provincial government appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal convicted the three accuseds, fined them each $2000, and sentenced them each to seven days in prison.

The three accuseds applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave (permission) to appeal the decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected their application for leave to appeal and ordered the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to consider the matter again after assessing the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in R v Morris, 2006 SCC 59 (CanLII).

In this hearing, the Court of Appeal ordered that three accuseds' sentences would be stayed (put on pause) until the Court reconsidered the matter as the Supreme Court of Canada had directed.

To assist the Court in reconsidering the matter and making its decision, the Court also ordered the parties to file written submissions that would address a number of relevant questions related to the Supreme Court of Canada's directions.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/2007/2007canlii4847/2007canlii4847.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.