A First Nation is appealing a judge’s decision over how the Manitoba government regulates moose hunting on its traditional territory.

Jamie Moses, Manitoba’s minister of natural resources at the time, drew criticism after he cut the number of moose draw hunting licences for residents by 75 per cent — from 400 to 100 — across four of the province’s 62 game-hunting areas in July 2024.

The move sparked legal challenges from Pimicikamak Cree Nation and the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, who asked for a judicial review of the decision.

During a two-day hearing in November 2024, Pimicikamak’s lawyers also argued for an injunction against the moose-hunting licences, alleging the province’s decision to issue them infringed on its rights under provincial laws, Treaty 5 and the 1977 Northern Flood Agreement.

That agreement, signed between a group of northern Manitoba First Nations, the federal and provincial governments, and Manitoba Hydro, states Manitoba must prioritize Indigenous harvesters on Pimicikamak’s traditional territory.

Pimicikamak argued the licensing decision did not meet the Crown’s legal obligation to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous people before making decisions that may infringe on their rights.

Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Justice Brian Bowman dismissed both challenges in October, saying Moses’s decision was justifiable given the data the province had at the time. He also ruled the province “adequately discharged” the Crown’s duty to consult the First Nation.

“Given the grave concerns that were raised by Aboriginal communities regarding declining moose populations, the decision was reasonable and rational, but imperfect,” Bowman’s decision said.

Pimicikamak filed a notice of appeal at the Manitoba Court of Appeal on March 6, alleging Bowman erred in his decision in five areas.

The judge wrongly concluded Pimicikamak’s application for an injunction was based on “asserted unproven” Aboriginal and treaty rights instead of the First Nation’s established treaty right to hunt, the notice of appeal says.

In his decision, Bowman said Pimicikamak’s claims that Moses’s licensing decision infringed on its Aboriginal and treaty rights cannot be determined through an application for a judicial review, as they require “a full discovery process and must be made by way of a statement of claim.”

Pimicikamak’s application was “not the proper forum in which to make a determination of the existence or scope of Aboriginal or treaty rights, nor is it the proper forum to determine whether the asserted treaty rights have been unjustifiably infringed,” Bowman wrote.

He said many of the issues Pimicikamak raised in court arise directly from the flood agreement, which has a dispute resolution process that can include arbitration. Such matters “should be heard by an arbitrator” under the agreement’s process, Bowman said.

Pimicikamak’s traditional territory, also known as the Cross Lake Resource Area, spans nearly 15,000 square kilometres and portions of four of Manitoba’s game-hunting areas, including two of four areas subject to the 75 per cent licence reduction.

‘Incorrect legal test’

Pimicikamak alleges Bowman wrongly concluded some of the facts in its injunction request were in dispute and he incorrectly interpreted a court rule when he said Pimicikamak’s application would require a full trial via a fresh statement of claim.

Pimicikamak claims Bowman also failed to ensure his decision “struck a balance between procedure, access to justice, and the fair and just adjudication of the issues.”

The judge failed to apply the court’s rules to avoid a multiplicity of legal cases and to “secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding,” Pimicikamak alleges.

Bowman also erred in law when he identified and considered the “incorrect legal test” for an injunction, incorrectly concluded Pimicikamak needed to file a lawsuit to proceed, and that the First Nation could seek an injunction through the flood agreement, the notice says.

The First Nation alleges Bowman incorrectly concluded the court could dismiss Pimicikamak’s application without considering its merits.

Pimicikamak also claims the judge wrongly determined the “extent and content” of the Crown’s duty to consult, and erred in fact and law by “erroneously concluding” the province met the Crown’s duty to consult Pimicikamak about the licences.

Bowman’s decision appeared to be precedent-setting in Manitoba, as a judge had never handled a case where a First Nation sought a judicial review for alleged breaches of its Aboriginal and treaty rights, lawyer Byron Williams, who represented Pimicikamak in the case, said at the time.

For the 2025 hunting season, the province reinstated the majority of the moose hunting licences that were cut by Moses. The province also set aside parts of two northern hunting areas for exclusive use by Indigenous hunters.