A.G. Bowering

The appellant, an Indian, was charged with fishing during a closed season contrary to the federal Fisheries Act.

He argued that clause 13 of the 1929 agreement between Canada and Manitoba gave him the right to fish for food at all seasons.

The trial judge dismissed the charge, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that clause 13 only applied to provincial laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming that the agreement did not exempt the appellant from the federal Fisheries Act, following its previous decision in Daniels v. White and The Queen.

The respondent, a treaty Indian, was convicted of hunting deer during a closed season and at night with a light on a public road.

The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, holding that Indians have a right of access to public roads for hunting.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding that a public road is occupied Crown land and the general right of access to roads does not include a right to hunt.

The appellant, a Treaty Indian, appealed convictions under the Manitoba Wildlife Act for hunting on privately owned, non-posted property.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the obiter statement from Myran, Meeches et al. v. The Queen that there is no right of access for such hunting, and disapproving of the Manitoba Court of Appeal's earlier decision in R. v. Prince.