Donald R. Colborne

The applicant, a status Indian and member of Couchiching First Nation, sought leave to appeal his convictions under the Public Lands Act for building a cabin without a work permit and contrary to a stop work order.

He argued the cabin was built in furtherance of his treaty right to hunt and fish, challenged the constitutionality of the Act, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the justice of the peace's relationship with a Ministry of Natural Resources manager.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the determination of treaty rights is a question of law, the applicant failed to prove the cabin was reasonably incidental to his rights, he could not challenge the regulatory regime without establishing a right, and the high threshold for disqualifying bias was not met.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an application to determine which Indian Bands were the beneficial owners of the Agency One Reserve, created in 1875 pursuant to Treaty 3.

The applications judge found that the reserve was set apart solely for the use and benefit of the Rainy Lake Bands, based on historical evidence including a 1908 surrender of land.

The Rainy River Bands appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's decision on entitlement, finding it supported by the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal regarding costs, ordering the Crown to pay the bands' costs of the application on a substantial-indemnity basis due to its fiduciary role and its responsibility for the historical uncertainty.

The respondent, a bingo hall manager on a First Nation reserve, was acquitted of keeping a common gaming house after continuing operations despite the revocation of a provincial gaming licence.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that criminal law could not be used to enforce compliance with a provincial regulatory scheme.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to recognize that the prohibition of gambling except as provincially regulated is valid criminal law.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.