The accused is a member of the Stoney Bearspaw Band and is an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act, R.S.C.1985, c.I-5 of Canada. As a treaty Indian the accused is entitled to hunt at any time on unoccupied Crown lands or on lands to which he has a right of access. The accused was charged with hunting wildlife during closed season, contrary to s.27(1) of the Wildlife Act, S.A. 1984, c.W-9.1. He admitted to shooting a deer but maintained that he initially shot and wounded the deer on reserve land, and then followed the deer onto privately owned land where he shot and killed the deer. A Department of Fish and Wildlife official testified that deer tracks were located on the reserve land and lead onto the private property.
The two issues before the court were (1) whether the accused shot and wounded the animal on the reserve, or whether he fully hunted the animal on private property; and (2) whether the accused was guilty of hunting out of season if it was found that he initially wounded the animal on reserve property and then followed it onto private property where he shot and killed it.
The accused was convicted. The court found that there is no excuse in law to follow a wounded animal onto private property and finish the kill. The finishing of the kill constitutes hunting within the definition of the Wildlife Act. Therefore, the accused was hunting wildlife out of season when he followed the wounded deer onto private property.
Source: Case Law