The territorial government's allegations against Bonnet Plume Outfitters of the illegal occupation of land is back to square one.

Justice Leigh Gower of the Yukon Supreme Court has ruled in a 14-page decision that the section of the Territorial Lands Act used in the Bonnet Plume case to kickstart the court process goes against the general rules of the court.

His decision was released Monday.

In setting aside the section, Gower noted the parties are now faced with starting over with the procedures, which will eventually result in the case being concluded in some fashion.

The government's lands branch contends Bonnet Plume Outfitters has no legal right to occupy a piece of land at Copper Point along the Bonnet Plume River. The company has built a cook shack and three sleep cabins at the site over the last two years.

Government officials have indicated they are reviewing the decision to determine its implications.

It remains unclear what the decision means for the Bonnet Plume case.or future cases involving the occupation of Crown land.

The government has also started a court action against another big game hunting business, Mervyn's Yukon Outfitting, for building a structure without any authority to do so.

Whether Gower's decision affects the government's case against Mervyn's, government officials were unavailable to say.

Though not part of last week's challenge of the lands act, Tim and Jennifer Mervyn were in court to hear the arguments.

Chris and Sharron McKinnon, the Alberta-based owners of the Bonnet Plume business, have stated publicly they had every belief they had been given the OK to go ahead with the new buildings.

No such permission was ever issued nor suggested, the lands branch contends in material filed with the court.

Nic Weigelt, a Vancouver-based lawyer acting on behalf of the McKinnons, appeared in court last week on a procedural challenge of the Territorial Lands Act.

The section in the act, Weigelt submitted to Gower, is flawed. Therefore, the court should suspend the summons issued under it which required the McKinnons to respond within 30 days to the allegation of illegal occupancy, he argued.

Under that particular section, if government officials didn't know who owned the structure in question, they could simply put up notices around the building, in the middle of nowhere, and in the middle of winter, he submitted.

Their actions would fulfill the requirement by the court to notify the owners of the property about the impending court case to have the structures removed, though there may not be anyone around for months to see the notices, Weigelt pointed out.

While the local law office of record for Bonnet Plume Outfitters was served with a letter the day after government officials appeared in court to obtain the 30-day summons, Weigelt said the section of the act is still flawed. And because it's flawed, the action against his client needed to be stopped and started over, he told Gower last week.

Weigelt also stressed the procedural challenge is not a stalling tactic. The particular section needs to be dealt with because it could ultimately be used to destroy valuable buildings in the wilderness, with the owner having no knowledge nor opportunity to present his defence, he said.

Weigelt also emphasized when the main case comes before the court, Bonnet Plume will indeed be ready to present its side of the story. The lawyer described some of the government evidence before the court as 'loosey-goosey.'

Yukon government lawyer Mike Winstanley told the court the law was designed that way to provide officials with the ability to remove illegal structures in a reasonable amount of time after taking reasonable steps to locate the owners.

In this case, it was pointed out, the local law office of record for Bonnet Plume was notified immediately of the court action, and the McKinnons were notified by registered mail at their home in Alberta within two weeks.

In his 14-page decision, Gower notes it will ultimately be up to the two parties to decide how they want to proceed.

He points out they can proceed with two separate hearings: the first being whether the government has sufficient grounds to ask the court for a summons requiring the McKinnons to respond to the allegation of illegal occupancy.

The second is the main case.

Gower suggested in his decision that the parties may want to do both at once, as the procedures could be expensive, particularly as the McKinnons have retained a Vancouver lawyer.