On December 30, 2014, Yukon Government (YG) announced that they were appealing Justice Veale’s decision stating that the trial judge erred not only in his interpretation and application of the Final Agreements but also erred in granting punitive remedy. YG felt that the Final Agreements do not require proposed modifications under s. 11.6.2 to rise to any particular level of specificity, nor do the proposed modifications amount to approval of a land use plan, nor do the Final Agreements restrict either party’s ability to modify a planning commissions final recommended plan as it relates to lands within the sphere of authority, and finally, that the Final Agreements do not call for any consultations beyond those that were conducted by the Parties.
November 4, 2015, Chief Justice Bauman, Madam Justice Smith and Justice Goepel of the Yukon Court of Appeal confirmed breach of YG treaty obligations. The ruling stated that Yukon Government’s Plan for the Peel Watershed was a ‘legal nullilty’, however, they also ruled that the process must return to the point at which YG breach of the Final Agreements began. The Court of Appeal’s judgement would then allow YG to go back to 2010 and start the process over at the point when it received the Commission’s Recommended Plan instead of remitting the matter to the stage of final consultation. The Court of Appeal also stated that at the end of the day YG held the final authority to reject any plan resulting from the process.