Case information

Aboriginal law — Aboriginal rights — Fishing — Hunting — Métis — Respondents found guilty of unlawfully fishing and hunting — Respondents raising Métis harvesting rights under s. 35(1) of Constitution Act, 1982, as defence — Trial judge narrowing claim to specific geographic areas — Court of Appeal finding trial judge erred in interpreting R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207, and ordering new trial — Whether Court of Appeal made several errors in applying Powley test in this case and contradicted approaches taken by courts in other jurisdictions to Métis rights claims — Whether Aboriginal rights claims can be brought in relation to vast geographical areas — Whether Aboriginal rights may be asserted on behalf of one Indigenous entity or Métis Nation, or whether such rights are specific to each community and are to be determined on a case-by-case basis — Whether broad Aboriginal rights claims should be allowed in regulatory prosecutions — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondents, Warren Boyer and Oliver Poitras, were charged with unlawfully fishing and hunting after being found fishing and hunting for food, respectively, contrary to Saskatchewan fishing and hunting regulations. Both accused admitted the facts of the offences, but in defence they raised an Aboriginal right to fish/hunt for food which would be protected under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Both accused claimed to have Métis harvesting rights in the geographic areas in which they were found fishing or hunting, and that such areas fall within the already-recognized regional historic rights-bearing Métis community of northwest Saskatchewan.

A Provincial Court judge issued a mid-trial ruling narrowing the scope of the claimed right to specific geographic areas only, and then convicted both accused, finding that they had not successfully demonstrated a s. 35 harvesting right in those areas.

The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed summary conviction appeals filed by both accused, but the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed further appeals from both accused and ordered a new trial.