Mr. Boucas was charged and convicted with three violations under the Wildlife Act and its regulations after he killed a female grizzly bear out of season using bait. Soon afterwards the Deputy Director of Wildlife suspended his licence and required him to complete the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education (CORE) examinations before obtaining a new licence. Mr. Boucas appealed, arguing that s. 25(2) of the Act violated the principles of fundamental justice and therefore his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this preliminary decision the Board was asked to consider its ability to consider constitutional questions.
The Board looked to the courts for direction on this question. The first step was to consider whether the Board had jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter and the remedy sought. In this case it clearly did. Secondly, the Board considered whether it had explicit or implied authority to determine questions of law. In its opinion both the Environment Management Act and the Wildlife Act gave it explicit authority to do so. For these reasons, along with a variety of other factors, the Board ruled that it had the ability to hear constitutional questions.
