R v Reynolds, 2016 NBQB 18

This case was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division.

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 in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick, 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 this appeal, the provincial government challenged three of the reasons for the stay. First, the government argued that the Provincial Court misused the processes available to it, amounting to an abuse of process. Second, the government argued that the court had made an error in determining that the government was attempting to relitigate treaty rights that had already been determined. Third, the government argued that the court had wrongly found that other Canadian courts had concluded that Indigenous peoples of New Brunswick could sell or transfer moose meat outside the bounds of the Fish and Wildlife Act.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the issues raised at this trial (specifically the adjudication of an aboriginal and treaty rights claim) were too complex to be determined through the summary convictions process in the Provincial Court.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the stay and dismissed the appeal.  

The issues before the Court in this appeal were later raised in R v Reynolds, 2016 NBCA 25, and R v Reynolds, 2017 NBCA 36.

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2016/2016nbqb18/2016nbqb18.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.