Decision Date: November 16, 2020

Panel: David Bird

Keywords: Wildlife Act – ss. 16(1)(a), 101, 101.1(1); Hunting Regulation; jurisdiction; appealable decision; ministerial order

Chad Sjodin, Hanna M. K. Buchanan, 1002670 BC Ltd., and Scott B. Campbell (collectively, the “Appellants”) filed two separate appeals in response to a Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis (the “Synopsis”) published by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (the “Ministry”). The Synopsis provides summary information on provincial laws that apply to hunting and trapping. The July 1, 2020 version of the Synopsis set out a regulation change that removed the open caribou hunting season in management unit (“MU”) 6-27 from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2022.

The Appellants are licensed guide outfitters and/or hold guiding territory certificates which include areas in MU 6-27. They sought to appeal the caribou hunting closure in MU 6-27, and they asserted that the closure was a decision of the Director, Wildlife and Habitat Branch (the “Director”), Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

As a preliminary matter, the Board invited the parties to provide submissions on whether the Synopsis contains an appealable decision under the Wildlife Act, and, if not, whether the appeals ought to be summarily dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that under the Wildlife Act, it is authorized hear appeals of the types of decisions referred to in sections 101 and 101.1(1) of that Act. The language in those sections indicates that certain decisions of a Director or a Regional Manager may be appealed to the Board. In this case, the caribou hunting closure in MU 6-27 did not result from a decision made by a Director or a Regional Manager. Rather, it resulted from an amendment to the Hunting Regulation by an order made by the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development under section 16(1)(a) of the Wildlife Act. The Board held that a ministerial order is not a decision of a Director or a Regional Manager, and is not an appealable decision referred to in sections 101 and 101.1(1) of the Wildlife Act.

Accordingly, the Board dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.