Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories Confirms Sahtú Communities Can Manage the Harvesting of Wildlife in Their Territory

Monday, January 20, 2025

The Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories (the “Court of Appeal”) recently released a decision that confirms that communities in the Sahtú are empowered by their modern treaty to manage the conservation and harvest of wildlife – including caribou – in their own local areas. OKT represented the Sahtú community of Colville Lake (the Dehlà Got’įne̗), in this litigation.

Background

As a part of the Sahtú Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (the “Treaty”), the five Sahtú communities in the Northwest Territories and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories (“GNWT”) agreed to co-manage wildlife conservation and harvesting. This regime includes both:

• The Sahtú Renewable Resources Board (“SRRB”): A regional board which can make policy recommendations and decisions on how to manage wildlife in the Sahtú Settlement Area. Half of the SRRB is appointed by the Sahtú, and the other half is appointed by Canada and the GNWT. SRRB recommendations are subject to final approval by the GNWT Minister of Environment and Natural Resources (the “Minister”); and
• “Renewable Resources Councils (“RRCs”): Local boards which have the power to manage the exercise of local harvesting rights according to legislation and SRRB policies.[1]

In recognition of the relationship between Indigenous communities and the surrounding wildlife, the SRRB has started considering “Community Conservation Plans” (“CCPs”), which allow for wildlife to be managed according to plans made by the local Sahtú community, based on Dene law.  The SRRB had determined that CCPs can be as effective, if not more effective than the Minister’s management plans, which rely primarily on a Total Allowable Harvest (“TAH”) or quote setting specific limits on how many caribou can be harvested in a year.[2]

Colville Lake’s Wildlife Management Plan

In 2019, the Dehlà Got’įne̗ proposed a local CCP (the “Colville Plan”) for SRRB’s review that was based on Dene knowledge, the Dene way of life and the longstanding laws and practices for respectful safe harvesting that had preserved their relationship with ʔədǝ? (barren ground caribou) since time immemorial.

After extensive consultation, the SRRB recommended to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources (the “Minister”) that Colville Lake RRC manage the caribou in their local area for all harvesters, and that the total allowable harvesting quote on caribou should be removed once the Colville Plan was finalized. The Minister rejected these recommendations – instead deciding that the Colville RRC could only exercise authority over Dehlà Got’įne̗, while hunters from elsewhere in the Sahtú would have to follow GNWT regulation only. This decision was subject to a successful court challenge by Colville Lake. Subsequently GNWT appealed.

The Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal found that the Minister’s decision to only let the Colville RRC manage harvesting by the Dehlà Got’įne̗ breached the Treaty. It explained that modern treaties are meant to signal a new way of working together, including by giving voice to Indigenous law. [3] In this case, the Court found the  Treaty is intended to revitalize the role of Dene law in wildlife harvesting, and that the role of RRCs to manage all harvesting in their areas was clear from the plain meaning of the Treaty provisions.[4]

The Court of Appeal’s decision affirms the right of Sahtú communities to reinstate wildlife management practices based on Indigenous knowledge as part of the Treaty co-management regime. It noted that nothing in the Treaty indicates that TAH quotas are the only tools that can be used to manage wildlife harvesting, and that the SRRB had done extensive work to determine that CCPs may be more effective than quotas in managing wildlife populations.[5]  It also criticized the Minister for speculating that the SRRB’s approach, based on Indigenous practice, understanding and consensus building, is unworkable.[6]

Closing Comments

This important decision speaks to how co-management regimes made under land claim agreements should work, especially when it comes to the role of local communities and Indigenous law in decision-making related to wildlife.

[1] Colville Lake Renewable Resources Council v Northwest Territories (Minister of Environment and Natural Resources), 2025 NWTCA 1 (CanLII), at paras 4-8.

[2] Ibid at para 15.

[3] Ibid at para 39.

[4] Ibid at paras 39-47.

[5] Ibid at para 48.

[6] Ibid at para 53.