In an unprecedented decision, the Yukon Supreme Court is allowing a camera in the courtroom to film a portion of the upcoming trial over the future of the Peel River watershed.

Justice Ron Veale today approved an application by the plaintiffs to record the first half of the first day of the proceedings, which will see two environmental groups and two First Nations face off against the territorial government over the government's controversial land use plan for the region.

Despite applications by local media organizations in the past, filming of civil and criminal trials has never been allowed in the Yukon, according to the court.

The Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) — the driving force behind the request — is seeking to document the historic legal battle for archival purposes.

"I think it's going to be an historic week,” said CPAWS Yukon outreach co-ordinator Jody Overduin.

"The main purpose for us getting the footage is archival because it's such a landmark case. We also feel that it could be useful in the future if there are opportunities to make a little film with that footage,” she said.

CPAWS Yukon will be allowed to film from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. next Monday, capturing the opening statements by both sides and possibly some of the plaintiffs' inital arguments.

Overduin added there are no plans to release the recording publicly anytime soon, much less stream or televise the events live.

Legal officer Andrea Bailey told the Star the Supreme Court order, being written today by the judge following a 10 a.m. case management conference, is the first of its kind for the territory.

"It seems to be a first for here, as far as we know,” Bailey said. "There's certainly no precedent that we're going back to.”

She noted she has seen cameras in the courtroom during judicial swearing-in ceremonies, but never for a trial — civil or criminal.

Both Bailey and John Hunter, the head lawyer for the government in the lawsuit, said there would be several conditions attached to the order.

"It is just the one video person from CPAWS that's been given this leave,” Hunter told the Star today.

He said the person behind the camera, the type of equipment used and the spot he or she would occupy in the courtroom would all be specified in the judicial order.

Bailey noted one aim of the court was "making sure that the camera equipment is as unobtrusive as possible.” Recording of counsel conversations and documents will likely be off limits.

The ultimate purpose of the footage was under examination too, Bailey said.

"I think the order will restrict it to things like documentary, news, archival kind of use, nothing that would bring the court into disrepute” — like muckraking, polemics or parody.

The upcoming court hearing, running from July 7 to 11, arises from the government's adoption this year of a land use plan for the Peel watershed that litigants claim was unilateral and unlawful because it breached the co-operative process outlined in the Yukon's aboriginal land claim settlements.

The suit was filed jointly by the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, the Tr'ondek Hwech'in of Dawson City, the Yukon Conservation Society and CPAWS Yukon last February.

Bailey pointed out that cameras in the courtroom, while unprecedented in the Yukon, are becoming a more common sight — though only slightly — around the country.

"There's a move toward more open courts,” she said.

Since the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada has permitted nearly all of its proceedings to be broadcast by CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel).

These hearings are available live online as well as in "episode” format after the fact.

Both the Federal Court of Appeal and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ran pilot projects in the 1990s that saw cases, including criminal appeals, recorded, some by television cameras.

Usually, however, visual recording is not allowed during trials, largely because of the impact of the lens on potential witnesses. The logic is that people who might otherwise come forward would be dissuaded or alter their testimony because of the knowledge of a camera beaming their words to the outside world.

The courthouse has set aside two courtrooms for the Peel trial, one for the hearing itself and another — equipped with a flat-screen television and in-house video streaming — for spillover from members of the public.

The final land use plan recommended by a Peel River watershed planning commission in July 2011 called for wilderness protection over 80 per cent of the watershed. The plan formally adopted by the government last January, however, calls for wilderness protection for less than 30 per cent of the watershed, and allows for surface access – via roads, trails and bridges – through much of the area.

The government argues it had the right under the land use process to accept, reject or modify recommendations advanced by the Peel planning commission because 97 per cent of the watershed is territorial Crown land.

The plaintiffs have retained Thomas Berger, the renowned Canadian jurist and former B.C. Supreme Court justice, as their lawyer. He has suggested the government is bound by — and violated — the principle of fair play, which includes proper consultation of any proposed changes to the original recommendation by the planning commission.

By CHRISTOPHER REYNOLDS

Star Reporter