This case was an appeal of the decision in R. v. Vautour, 2010 NBPC 39 and was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial division.

The Appellants, Jackie Vatour and Roy Vatour, were convicted at trial for unauthorized fishing of soft-shelled clams in violation of the Canada National Parks Fishing Regulations and the Canada Parks Act. At trial, the Appellants unsuccessfully advanced the argument that they had a Métis Aboriginal right to fish for food under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In this appeal, the issue before the Court was whether the lower court had erred in rejecting the Appellants' Métis Aboriginal right claim. The Court considered whether the trial judge misapplied the legal test that the Supreme Court of Canada set out in R v Powley, [2003] 2 SCR 207 (SCC) for evaluating Métis Aboriginal rights claims and failed to fully consider relevant evidence provided by the Appellants.

With regard to the Powley test, the Court concluded that the trial court had not erred. The Court held that the Appellants could not prove that an historical Métis community had existed in the area where the offences took place at the time when Europeans established control over the territory. With regard to the question of whether evidence put forward by the Appellants had been fully considered, the Court found that the trial judge had considered and directly addressed that evidence in his decision. For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed. 

The Appellants later sought leave to appeal this decision in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, but their application for leave to appeal was dismissed in Vautour et al. v. R., 2017 NBCA 21.

View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2015/2015nbqb94/2015nbqb94.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.