In R. v. Chief Dsta’hyl, 2026 BCCA 176, the BC Court of Appeal considered whether Indigenous law could excuse a Wet’suwet’en chief’s breach of a court injunction related to protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline project. Chief Dsta’hyl had been convicted of criminal contempt after participating in actions that obstructed pipeline construction in Indigenous territory in 2021. The injunction prohibited interference with access to construction sites, but Chief Dsta’hyl argued that he was acting pursuant to Wet’suwet’en law, which he said imposed obligations to protect the territory from unauthorized intrusion.
On appeal, Chief Dsta’hyl advanced a novel “excusatory defence,” claiming that Canada’s legal system should recognize the coexistence of Indigenous legal orders and excuse conduct undertaken in accordance with those laws. He maintained that the injunction conflicted with Wet’suwet’en law governing trespass and territorial stewardship. The Court acknowledged the importance of Indigenous legal traditions and accepted that Indigenous law survives as part of Canada’s broader “multi-juridical” legal framework. However, the Court held that parties cannot simply disregard valid court orders on the basis of another legal order.
Chief Justice Leonard Marchand, writing for a unanimous court, concluded that any defence based on Indigenous law could only arise in exceptional “last resort” circumstances where no lawful alternatives existed. In this case, Chief Dsta’hyl had other legal avenues available, including challenging or appealing the injunction through the courts. Because he chose instead to breach the order directly, the Court found that his conduct amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the injunction and upheld the conviction for criminal contempt.
The decision is significant because it recognizes the legitimacy and continued existence of Indigenous legal orders while reaffirming the authority of Canadian courts and the rule of law. It illustrates the ongoing tension between Indigenous governance systems and Canadian state law in disputes involving land, sovereignty, and resource development