Justice Ron Veale has reserved his decision in the lawsuit over the future of the Peel River watershed.

Veale heard final submissions Friday regarding what the parties think his decision should look like.

The Yukon government wants the judge to throw out the lawsuit filed earlier this year by two First Nations and two environmental organizations.

The plaintiffs want the judge to re-start the planning exercise, at the point where the Peel planning commission delivered its final recommendation, before the government dismissed it and replaced it with its own land use plan.

Following a four-day trial in July, the judge asked the parties in late August to provide clarification on the remedies they were seeking.

Written submissions were submitted earlier this month in advance of Friday’s hearing to present oral arguments.

Aboriginal leaders and elders were among those who crowded into the Yukon Supreme Court or took up seats in a second courtroom opened up to handle the overflow and rigged with a live video feed of the proceedings.

Thomas Berger, a renowned and former justice of the Supreme Court of B.C., spent an hour and a half Friday morning presenting his arguments on behalf of the First Nation of Na’cho Nyak Dun, the Tr’ondek Hwech’in, the Yukon Conservation Society and the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Senior Vancouver lawyer John Hunter took about an hour providing the case for the Yukon government.

The Peel land use planning commission delivered its recommendation in July 2011, calling for 80 per cent wilderness protection across the 68,000 square kilometres along with restricted or prohibited road accesss to most of the region.

Before embarking on the final round of consultation, the Yukon made signficant changes to the recommended land use plan. It proposed 30 per cent wilderness protection, with road access allowed throughout the region.

The government formally adopted its version of the land use plan this past January, prompting the lawsuit by the two First Nations and environmental organization.

The debate over the future of the Peel has been loud and lengthy.

Some say it must be protected as one of the last pristine wilderness areas. Others argue there are vast natural resources that should be available for responsible development.

Berger argued Friday the government was not legally entitled to make substantial alterations to the recommended plan, as it had already put forward five proposed changes to the planning commission prior to the commission’s final recommendation.

Not only should the judge order a return to the planning exercise to the point were the commission delivered its recommendation, but the order should place tight restrictions on what future modifications the government would be entitled to make.

The plaintiffs argue once the government conducts the final round of public consultation on the commission’s recommendation, further modifications should be limited to just three areas.

The government, for instance, should not be allowed to modify the amount of land the commission is recommending for protection, nor modify the proposed restrictions on road access, says the plaintiffs.

Berger argued the land use planning exercise established in the territory’s aboriginal claim agreements requires the government to act honourably when dealing with the planning process and the First Nations.

Its decision to substantially modify the plan recommended by the commission falls far short of honourable conduct, he suggested.

The government, Berger argued, must not be given a second chance now to make more modifications.

He said it could be allowed to make further changes to three of the five modifications the planning commission accepted from the government prior to issuing its final recommendation, but that’s it.

“In the case at bar, the order of the court should leave no room for the government to take any further steps on the basis of the government plan,” he told the judge.

Hunter, however, emphasized the government’s position is that it had the right under the land claim agreements to accept, reject or modify the commission’s final recommendation.

The agreements clearly provide the authority to accept, reject or modify to the owner of the land, and in this case, 97 per cent of Peel watershed is territorial Crown land, Hunter said.

He told the judge the government wants the judge to find it had the right to modify the commission’s recommendation in the way that it did, and that there are no grounds to support the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Should the judge find that it did not have that right, if he finds there was a flaw in the process, then the proper thing to do would be to send the matter back into the planning exercise for reconsideration by the government, he said.

Hunter said the order, however, must not come with any conditions.

Accepting the plaintiffs’ view, he said, would tie the government to the final land use plan recommended by the planning commission, a plan the government does not accept.

If the matter is sent back to some point in the planning stage, the government must retain the right to ultimately reject the proposal following the next round of consultation, if indeed it goes that route, Hunter argued.

He said the Supreme Court of Canada has found in the case where there is a flaw in the process involving public commissions, it’s best to send the matter back for reconsideration by the commission with no strings attached.

Ordering stringent guidelines in the reconsideration of the land use plan, accepting the position of the First Nations and environmental organizations, would be contrary to the finding of the country’s highest court, Hunter said.

The judge did not provide any indication about how long it might take him to make his decision.