This motion was heard before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, and was previously heard in R v Reynolds, 2016 NBQB 18.

The Respondent, Michael Reynolds, was charged with illegally possessing and selling the carcass of a moose, contrary to sections 58 and 51(1)(a) of New Brunswick's Fish and Wildlife Act. In this case, the Respondent was party to an offence where a non-Indigenous person was convicted of possessing a moose carcass. At trial, the Respondent argued that the charges violated his “Aboriginal treaty right to obtain necessaries through hunting and fishing by trading the products of those traditional activities” and so asked for a stay of proceedings. The stay was granted. In response, the government acted to have the stay overturned, which failed because the Court decided that the issues raised were outside the scope of provincial courts.

In this motion, the Attorney General of New Brunswick (acting on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick) sought a stay because of the “precedential value” of the previous stay being upheld. The Attorney General argued the decision could have a negative impact on future cases heard by the courts.

The Court held that in order to justify the use of the Court's power to grant a stay, the provincial government would have to show that failing to act could result in a serious risk of  “irreparable harm”. Ultimately, the Court held that the government could not demonstrate a serious risk of irreparable harm, and so the motion failed.

The Government of New Brunswick sought to appeal this decision again in  R v Reynolds, 2017 NBCA 36.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/2016/2016nbca25/2016nbca25.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.