Nunavut Court of Appeal upholds driving bans for 3 Inuit hunters
Year-long suspension an inconvenience but not a Charter breach, appeal court says
The Nunavut Court of Appeal has upheld driving bans for three Inuit hunters convicted of alcohol-related offences, rejecting their challenge that the suspensions violate their constitutional right to hunt country food. (File photo)
One-year driving bans for three Inuit hunters convicted of alcohol-related driving offences have been upheld by the Nunavut Court of Appeal, which dismissed their argument that the suspensions violate their constitutional right to hunt country food.
The hunters — Methuselah Nanauq Qiyuk, Brad Sigurdson and James Enuapik — each pleaded guilty in 2023 and received mandatory one-year driving prohibitions under the Criminal Code.
They appealed the sentences, arguing the bans infringe on their rights under both section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which protects Indigenous harvesting rights, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But in a July 23 ruling released Wednesday, Justice Jack Watson dismissed the hunters’ appeal, finding the suspension orders valid and constitutionally sound.
Lawyers for the hunters argued that losing their ability to operate snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles in remote areas would effectively prevent them from participating in traditional hunts.
In affidavits filed with the court, Qiyuk said the prohibition would prevent him from joining hunting trips with his family and from travelling to harvesting areas.
Enuapik, who often hunts alone, said relying on someone else to drive would make it difficult to follow his usual hunting schedule. Sigurdson said being unable to help transport supplies or harvested animals would disrupt group hunts and leave him feeling isolated.
Both the sentencing judge, now-retired Justice Paul Bychok, and the appeal court found the evidence did not support those claims.
“The evidence did not establish that a driving prohibition would prevent any of the applicants or a reasonable hypothetical offender from hunting,” Bychok said in his sentencing decision.
The evidence showed the men could still participate in traditional hunts by relying on others to drive.
The Crown had conceded at sentencing that the bans might amount to cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter in this specific context.
However, the appeal court disagreed, saying the bans were more of an inconvenience than a real violation of the men’s right to hunt.
Next time just dont drink and drive, no sympathy for those who endanger lives
I don’t agree with Judge Bychok about much, or really anything, but I think he and the Court of Appeal got this right. It’s a pain to not be able to drive but hardly a breach of treaty obligations or even cruel and unusual punishment. I found that was a really odd position for the Crown to take. I think the driving prohibitions are fit punishments for their drinking and driving and while inconvenient, not unconstitutional; they’re appropriate consequences. We’ll see if this is appealled any further.
You’re right. A driving prohibition under the criminal code would clearly not violate Inuit treaty rights. As we know, those rights are entirely set out in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The Agreement says explicitly that an Inuk has the right to use any technology to hunt ( like a firearm, snow machine or ATV) as long as it does not violate any general law relating to public safety, which would include the Criminal Code. So in other words, if the Criminal Code prohibits you from going hunting with a snow machine, you can’t and you have no right under the NLCA to do so period. It’s not complicated really.
As far as a prohibition being cruel and unusual punishment, any reasonable person knows that to be a ridiculous argument. I’m quite surprised, and even shocked that the crown would concede that.
They should have never gotten behind the wheel while drinking alcohol and this is a clear message to everyone else that if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
Drinking and driving has caused so many accidents and so many deaths that could have been prevented if people do not drink and drive.
Remember folks the police just need to get lucky once to catch you, you need to be lucky every time you drive while intoxicated..
Driving is a privilege Not a Right, what’s wrong with some people.
“I’m entitled to drive”. So are you still entitled if you had killed someone?
Oh oh. MIGA must be on holidays.
Thanks for thinking of me John! We are kindred spirits you and I!!
I’m baffled that a lawyer (public defender?) would agree to try building a case that links section 35 to a driving prohibition. Is this what the Nunavut Law Program is pumping out or is this an outside influence? The BAR is low in Nunavut.
None of the lawyers involved in this had any affiliation to the Nunavut law program at all.
.
All the information about this case is publicly available. You could have looked the names up if you really cared, rather than using this story to take a shot at the NLP and lawyers who are actually from Nunavut.
.
The NLP has produced some good lawyers with great careers ahead of them.
.
If anything, I’d bet that NLP lawyers could have done a better job with this case than the southerners who ran it.