Her Majesty The Queen, Appellant v. Robert Norman Sutherland, Fred Wilson and Thomas Wilson, Respondents Country/Territory Canada Type of court National - higher court Date Jun 27, 1980 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Supreme Court of Canada Judge MartlandRitchieDicksonBeetzEsteyMcIntyreChouinard Reference number [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451 Language English Subject Wild species & ecosystems Keyword Hunting authorization/permit Indigenous peoples Hunting rights Abstract The respondents were treaty Indians residing on the Peguis Indian Reserve in Manitoba. They were apprehended while hunting deer for food in the Man¬tagao Lake Wildlife Management Area and, as a result, were charged under s. 19(1) of The Wildlife Act of Manitoba. They were convicted in the Provincial Court. They appealed unsuccessfully to the County Court, but the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 49 of the Act was ultra vires. There were two issues raised in this Court: 1) A constitutional question stated as follows: Is s. 49 of The Wildlife Act ultra vires in whole or in part? 2) If s. 49 is ultra vires, do treaty Indians have a right of access to the Area, for the purpose of hunting game for food, at any time? The Supreme Court held that the appeals should be dismissed. With respect to the first issue, the Court emphasized that pursuant to s. 49 of The Wildlife Act, land set aside and designated as a wildlife management area was conclusively deemed to be occupied Crown lands to which Indians had no right of access for purposes of para. 13 of the Memorandum of Agreement approved under The Manitoba Natural Resources Act. By para. 13 the Province assured to the Indians the right to hunt game for food at all seasons of the year on all (i) unoccupied Crown lands and on (ii) any other lands to which the Indians may have a right of access. There was no doubt s. 49 was ultra vires in its entirety. The provision could not purport to be a law of general application: Indians were singled out for special treatment, and s. 49 sought to affect the status of Indians in respect of their constitutionally entrenched right to hunt for food. It was a blatant attempt to un-entrench the concluding words of para. 13. With respect to the second issue, the Court noted that paragraph 13 should be given a broad and liberal construction. The right assured was the right to hunt game for food at all seasons of the year on lands to which Indians had a right of access for hunting, trapping and fishing. Where, as here, the Province had allowed limited hunting to Indians and non-Indians alike, then non-dangerous hunting for food was permitted to the Indians regardless of provincial curbs on season, method or limit: Once any hunting was allowed, then under para. 13 all hunting by Indians was permissible if hunting for food. Full text 1980scc10010.html