"The N.B. Court found little of substance in the 1760-61 and 1779 Mi'kmaq treaties with Mirimichi Mi'kmaq natives in regard to trade. This is a reminder to the Minister of Fisheries that Mirimichi natives may have little in the way of commercial fishing rights for other than eels."

The Court rejected claims that the Mi'kmaq treaties of 1760-61 and 1779 provided Mirimichi natives with commercial logging rights.

After a careful examination of historical documents, expert witnesses, and oral evidence from Chief Augustine and using all the legal tests established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall 1 and 2, the Court found "the primary focus of trade between the Mi'kmaq and the British was peltry".

Following the law established in Marshall, the Court dealt with the local nature of the treaty, it dealt with the Mirimichi area, and the traditionally harvested and processed goods that might have been traded at the time the treaties were signed.

The historical documents did not make reference to trade in fish. The only evidence received regarding trade in fish was oral evidence from Chief Augustine: "There were some trade of canoes, toboggans, modes of travel, I guess...There would have been some fish as well, I mean, fish involved, some salmon, as a trade. And an occasional sturgeon."

The Court relied on the Marshall decision to guide it in the consideration of the alleged commercial logging right. "Unfortunately, the Minister of Fisheries is not relying on the rules established in Marshall -- Mi'kmaq treaties were with specific communities or bands, their benefits were local in nature, involving things traditionally fished, hunted or gathered at the time the treaties were signed."

"Marshall does not provide the Minister of Fisheries with a mandate to purchase significant numbers of licences, vessels and gear and transfer them to bands who have never been involved in a lobster fishery. His actions are contrary to everything that Marshall stands for."