This appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal, and followed the decision in Queen v Drew et al, 2003 NLSCTD 105.
This decision came as a result of a previous ruling in which a trial court considered whether the Mi’kmaq of Miawpukek Band had a treaty right or an Aboriginal right to hunt, fish, and trap in the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve. The trial court found that neither right could be made out on the evidence, a position which the appellants appealed.
Turning first to the Aboriginal title claim, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court had correctly applied the test in R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants' ancestors had hunted, fished, and trapped in accordance with the right advanced prior to 1763. As for the issue of treaty rights, the Court found no error in the trial decision that would warrant overturning the decision, and it held that the trial judge had not erred in finding the treaties raised as evidence were either inapplicable to Newfoundland or did not contend with issues such as rights to hunt, fish, and trap.
Additionally, another issue was raised by a cross-appellant, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, which argued that any Aboriginal or treaty rights that might have been applicable under the circumstances had already been extinguished. This cross appeal was dismissed on the basis that if such Aboriginal or treaty rights could be raised, they would not be incompatible with the legislation on which Corner Brook Pulp and Paper had relied. For these reasons, both the appeal and cross appeal were dismissed.
Following this decision, the appellants sought leave to appeal the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ken Drew, Wilfred John, Larry John, Ralph John and Wilfred Drew v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador as represented by the Minister of Government Services and Lands and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, 2007 CanLII 15977 (SCC), but were dismissed.