Nunavut government loses appeal over illegal caribou hunt

The Nunavut government has lost its appeal in a case involving a young Inuk hunter who harvested a caribou in 2015 during a harvesting moratorium.

"The Government of Nunavut had no standing to launch this appeal," Justice Frans Slatter of the Nunavut Court of Appeal said in a written decision released April 21.

"If the Attorney General of Nunavut wishes to retain a role in the prosecution of territorial offences, legislative amendments may be needed."

The case involves Michael Irngaut, of Igloolik, who according to court documents was a 22-year-old Canadian Ranger when in 2015 he harvested a caribou on Igloolik Island.

During his trial in 2019 on charges laid under the Nunavut Wildlife Act, the court heard that while on the land, another member of Irngaut's party spoke by phone with an elder and HTO(Hunters and Trappers Organization)board member.That member said the ban was lifted, when in fact it had not been lifted.

Chief Justice Neil Sharkey found Irngaut couldn't be held responsible because of a technical defence called "officially induced error." That's when an official gives false information, which an accused then acts on.

Sharkey stayed the charges against Irngaut.

The Nunavut government appealed Sharkey's decision.

But Irngaut's lawyer, Benson Cowan, argued before Slatter earlier this year that the Nunavut government had no standing to appeal this prosecution.

That's because, unlike in the Yukon, Nunavut legislation has not been amended to give the territory the authority to appeal a case prosecuted by the Crown, Cowan argued.

There is no constitutional barrier to Nunavut's ability to pursue such an appeal involving a territorial offence, Slatter said.

But that would require "properly worded" legislation that outlines what that would look like.

"Nunavut could ... enact its own stand-alone procedures for prosecuting territorial offences, including procedures respecting appeals."

Appeal fails to set precedent

This case revolved around a number of legal technicalities.

For example, the government could have appealed this case through the conservation officer who laid the charges against Irngaut, Slatter said.

Citizens can initiate "private prosecutions" by swearing an information before the court that outlines allegations.

The citizen can then appeal the decision of such a prosecution. But that did not happen in this case.

Had that avenue been taken, Slatter said the defence of officially induced error would have failed.

In Slatter's view, Sharkey made a number of errors in staying the charges against Irngaut.

Sharkey reversed the onus to prove this defence, which lies with the accused, not with the Crown, Slatter wrote.

And a member of the local HTO does not have the authority to provide information on a ban enacted by the territorial government under the Wildlife Management Act, the judge added.

"If officially induced error was recognized on the facts disclosed by the record, it would have a serious detrimental effect on the ability of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to manage wildlife in Nunavut," Slatter wrote.

But since the government had no standing to appeal this case, the charges against Irngaut remain stayed.