This case was hear in the New Brunswick Provincial Court.

The defendant, John E. Paul, was charged with unlawfully making improvements on government land by erecting a hunting camp. Mr. Paul was an Indigenous individual of Maliseet descent, and his defence before the Court had two primary parts. First, he argued that he had an Aboriginal or treaty right to hunt in the area where the incident occurred. Second, he argued that this right extended to actions such as erecting shelters that were necessary for hunting. If proven, his right to hunt and erect shelters as necessary would defend him against the charges that he had violated the Crown Lands and Forests Act.

At trial, the accused first had to establish the existence of an Aboriginal or treaty right to hunt relevant to the area in which he had been caught hunting. Relying on oral testimony from Maliseet elders, as well as historic written accounts, the accused was able to prove that the Maliseet right to hunt extended to the area where he had been caught. As to whether this right allowed the construction of temporary shelters, the Court relied on the decision in R v Sundown, 1999 CanLII 673 (SCC), which set the standard for determining if an action can be regarded as “reasonably incidental” to the exercise of an Aboriginal or treaty right, taking into account both how the right was historically exercised and modern developments in the right. The Court held that Mr. Paul met the standard in R v Sundown; however, following R v Baker, 2008 ONCA 29, and Saskatchewan v Landry, (2001) SKQB 424, the Court held that it was also necessary that the action be for a communal purpose, not a personal one, and that Mr. Paul had failed to establish that the hunting camp was not simply for the personal use of himself, his immediate family, and friends. For that reason, the Court found that had Mr. Paul had failed to establish a right to construct a hunting camp in accordance with an Aboriginal or treaty right, making it unnecessary to consider whether the Crown Lands and Forests Act infringed that right. Mr. Paul was convicted as charged.