The controversial Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation land dispute case was heard in the B.C./Yukon Court of Appeal sitting all day Monday in Whitehorse.

Brad Armstrong, counsel for the Yukon government, began his submission to the three visiting justices by characterizing the relationship between the first nation and the Yukon government as a very modern relationship that is "utterly distinct" from historical relationships.

This modern agreement between the two parties involves 2,000 square kilometres of land and was established in 1997, he said.

The agreement provides for "extensive participation", public planning, consultation and management, Armstrong said.

These points are crucial for the case at hand, he said, since the controversial case arose because the first nation alleges it was not consulted before the government approved an application to use 65 hectares of their lands for agricultural purposes.

Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale ruled in favour of the first nation in 2007. The government hopes to have his decision overturned.

"This case is not about a breach of the agreement (signed in 1997)," said Armstrong. "There is no infringement of the agreement here."

Armstrong said the trial judge erred in law when he found that consultations, outside of the provisions specified in the agreement, are necessary to meet the duty to consult in treaty agreements, as specified in section 35 of the Constitution.

"The judge's decision was that the Yukon government has a duty to consult, just like there was no agreement at all."

Armstrong argued that the first nation was "given clear notice of the application" and that the government followed a "reasonable and fair consultation process."

Armstrong said a letter was sent to the first nation's chief in January 2004, notifying him of the land application. In March 2004, said Armstrong, a newspaper advertisement regarding the application was published.

"We say the government has acted honourably," he said.

A lawyer representing the Government of Canada made her submission next.

"Canada's purpose in intervening here is to show why the chambers judge erred," said Suzanne Duncan.

Duncan said the federal government disagrees with the first nation and the judge that the duty to consult "supersedes or overrides" the provisions of the existing agreement.

Duncan argued that the Yukon government's behaviour was not unilateral.

Arthur Pape, counsel for the first nation, began his submissions Monday afternoon.

"The essential thing is that the role of the duty (to consult) is to provide a level of protection for the rights secured by the agreement," he said.

Pape said this case sets a new precedent in aboriginal rights law, but it won't be the last.

Submissions continued in court today.