B.C. Court of Appeal Rejects Wet’suwet’en Chief’s Bid to Overturn Conviction Using Indigenous Law Defence

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that a Wet’suwet’en chief convicted of criminal contempt for breaching a court injunction during opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline cannot rely on Indigenous law to escape criminal liability.

In a decision that highlights the continuing tension between Canadian courts and Indigenous legal systems, the appellate court dismissed an appeal by Chief Dsta’hyl, also known as Adam Bernard Gagnon, who argued that he should not have been convicted because he was acting under Wet’suwet’en law when he defied the injunction.

The ruling stems from events in 2021, when Gagnon was found to have violated an injunction intended to prevent protesters from obstructing work on the Coastal GasLink pipeline. He later appealed his criminal contempt conviction, advancing what the court described as a “novel” argument: that his actions were compelled by Wet’suwet’en trespass law and therefore should not attract criminal punishment.

A Defence Rooted in Wet’suwet’en Law

According to the court, Gagnon’s defence was relatively straightforward in its structure. He argued that he had been enforcing Wet’suwet’en trespass law when he and other hereditary chiefs served Coastal GasLink with an eviction notice, and that this Indigenous legal obligation compelled his actions.

He was not asking the court to approve or justify his conduct in a broad sense, the ruling noted. Instead, he sought to be excused from liability for disobeying the injunction because of the legal framework he said he was bound to follow.

That argument was ultimately rejected.

A lower court judge had already found that the proposed defence amounted to a “collateral attack” on the injunction — in other words, an indirect attempt to undermine a valid court order rather than challenge it through recognized legal channels.

The three-judge appeal panel agreed with that reasoning.

Court Draws Clear Line on Injunctions

In its decision, the Court of Appeal said Gagnon could not treat violation of the injunction as a last resort because other lawful and peaceful avenues were available to challenge the order.

That finding was central to the court’s reasoning. Even if Gagnon believed he was acting in accordance with Wet’suwet’en law, the judges held that this did not entitle him to disregard an injunction issued by a Canadian court.

The ruling draws a firm boundary around the recognition of Indigenous legal orders within the current Canadian legal system: while those legal traditions may increasingly be acknowledged and considered, they cannot be used as a shield for breaching a court order.

Recognition of Historical Harm

At the same time, the court did not dismiss the broader importance of Indigenous law.

In language that acknowledged Canada’s colonial legal history, the ruling stated that Indigenous law has been denied, suppressed, and at times outlawed for more than a century. It also said Canadian law has a role to play in undoing that harm and is learning to make space for Indigenous legal orders in different ways.

But the court said that process has limits.

That effort, the judges wrote, does not include allowing either Indigenous or non-Indigenous parties to breach court orders. In effect, the court recognized the legitimacy of ongoing work toward legal pluralism, while making clear that injunctions remain binding unless overturned through lawful processes.

Wider Significance Beyond One Case

The case is part of the broader and long-running conflict surrounding the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which has become a flashpoint for debates over Indigenous sovereignty, hereditary governance, land rights, and resource development in British Columbia.

For many supporters of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, the issue extends far beyond one conviction. It raises deeper questions about whether Canadian institutions truly recognize Indigenous jurisdiction when it conflicts with state-backed industrial projects.

That context has helped make Chief Dsta’hyl’s case symbolically significant well beyond the courtroom.

In 2024, Amnesty International declared him a “prisoner of conscience,” saying he had been wrongfully criminalized for defending the land and rights of the Wet’suwet’en people.

Tension Between Reconciliation and Court Authority

The Court of Appeal’s ruling does not settle the larger legal and political debate over how Indigenous law should be recognized in Canada. But it does make one thing clear: at least under current law, Indigenous legal obligations cannot be invoked to nullify a criminal contempt conviction arising from a breach of injunction.

That leaves unresolved a deeper national challenge — how reconciliation and recognition of Indigenous legal orders are meant to function when they come into direct conflict with orders issued by Canadian courts.

In this case, the court’s answer was unequivocal. However Canadian law may evolve in the future to better accommodate Indigenous legal systems, that evolution does not presently permit the disobedience of a binding injunction.

For Chief Dsta’hyl, that means his conviction stands.

For the broader public debate, it means the fundamental question remains open: how far Canada is willing to go in recognizing Indigenous law when that recognition collides with the authority of the state.