The accused member of the Wet'suwet'en Nation was charged under the federal Fisheries Act with fishing without a licence. His defence that he was fishing in waters that are part of an Indian reserve and governed by a band bylaw was dismissed because the reserve did not include the land to the middle of the Bulkley River (see also R. v. Lewis, [1996] 1 SCR 921) and the First Nation had not been granted an exclusive fishery in that part of the river. However, the defendant had established an Aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes. The requirement of a licence to fish did not, in and of itself, infringe this right, but the conditions attached to the licence, such as restrictions on times and place of fishing and gear used, infringed this right and had not been justified by the Crown. Since the conditions were not severable from the licence, the licence requirement was invalid and the accused was acquitted.