The Yukon government and the territory's First Nations are claiming partial victories in a six-year-old land claim dispute on the heels of a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the case.
In the ruling, released Friday, Canada's top court ruled that the Yukon government did not breach its duty to consult the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation about an agricultural land lease to a prospective farmer in 2004.
But the decision also confirmed that Yukon First Nations, many of which have signed land claim and self-government agreements, must be consulted on important issues that affect their traditional territory.
"Not only is this the first time the court has looked at a modern-day treaty; it's the first time the highest court in Canada has looked at our treaties ," Yukon deputy justice minister Tom Ullyett told reporters in Whitehorse after the ruling. "So, we were looking for clarity, and we got clarity."
Arthur Pape, one of the lawyers who represented the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, said the ruling sets out some fundamental principles First Nations and governments can work with, hopefully resulting in fewer court disputes in the future.
"I think there may be a lot less cases in court because there are some important principles, or ground rules, … established here," Pape told CBC News.
"I would hope that the Yukon government and the First Nations will both, separately and together, really work to understand it and put it into effect, and so, a lot more things should get settled through talking rather than going to court."
The territorial government was accused of not properly consulting the First Nation, which has a signed land-claim and self-government agreement, before granting the lease to the farmer.
But the top court ruled the First Nation "received ample notice" and information about the lease application and was invited to take part in consultations.
Had the court ruled in the First Nation's favour, it could have influenced how much public governments would have to consult with First Nations with signed land claims on major matters such as land-use applications.
"What it means is that those agreements are not now subject to sort of an expansion or reopening or renegotiation," said Ken Coates, a Yukon historian from the University of Waterloo. "And that's actually a very, very important thing for Yukon, as it spent a lot of time getting those agreements in place.
"If the Supreme Court had decided that there was an additional duty to consult beyond what the agreements said, it would have opened up a real can of worms throughout the territory."
Yukon land claims lay out how consultations are to happen when land issues are up for debate.
But seven of the nine Supreme Court judges said that in the Little Salmon Carmacks case, the Yukon government's consultation actually went beyond its legal obligations.
The First Nation had been invited to participate directly in consultation meetings leading up to the lease approval.
However, the First Nation's officials did not attend those meetings. Instead, they sent their comments by letter to the government committee that was reviewing the application, the court said.
Two of the Supreme Court judges ruled that Yukon's land-claim agreements are final, meaning the government had no obligation to consult beyond what is written in those agreements.
The agricultural lease in question was for a 65-hectare parcel of land north of Carmacks, within the traditional territory of the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation.
Little Salmon Carmacks officials expressed concern that agricultural use of the land would interfere with the nearby trapline of one of its elders.
In court, the Yukon government argued that its agreement with the First Nation already details each party's obligations and that imposing any further consultation obligations would effectively give First Nations veto powers over development applications.
The Yukon Supreme Court had sided with the First Nation in 2007, ruling that the territorial government failed in its obligation to consult.
But the Yukon Court of Appeal ruled in 2008 that the government had, in fact, fulfilled its duty to consult First Nations about developments on their traditional territory.
Pape said the Supreme Court ruling will help First Nations and governments across Canada as more land claim agreements are implemented.
"This case is written to try and show everybody what the big principles are and help everybody understand what the strengths and weaknesses of their positions are and how they're supposed to work," Pape said.
"So, I think it will increase good discussions, good consultation, good information-sharing. I think in the end, this is a positive decision that everybody can learn to live with."