R v Reynolds, 2017 NBCA 36

This appeal was heard before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and followed the decisions in R v Reynolds, 2016 NBCA 25, and R v Reynolds, 2016 NBQB 18.

This appeal followed a series of motions following a stay of proceedings in a case where the Respondent had been charged for possessing and selling a moose carcass, contrary to New Brunswick's Fish and Wildlife Act. Later attempts by the Government of New Brunswick to overturn the stay failed.

In this appeal, the issue was whether the lower court which heard the first appeal had erred in deciding to uphold the stay of proceedings. At the first appeal, the stay was justified in part on the basis that a summary conviction proceeding in the Provincial Court was not an appropriate process through which to decide Aboriginal and treaty rights issues.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Respondent that the government’s conduct indicated an abuse of process towards him, which justified a stay. Furthermore, the issues raised at trial ultimately amounted to a determination of whether the Respondent’s constitutionally-protected rights had been varied in a way to prohibit him from selling moose meat to non-Indigenous persons. This, however, was outside the scope of a summary conviction process in the Provincial Court. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the government had not acted in accordance with the honour of the Crown and the fiduciary duty that attaches to government dealings with Indigenous persons and groups.

For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/2017/2017nbca36/2017nbca36.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.