Legal arguments were filed last Friday in the lawsuit against the Yukon government and its land use plan for the Peel River watershed.

The 46-page document authored by renowned Canadian lawyer Thomas Berger says the government breached the process for establishing regional land use plans as outlined in the territory's aboriginal land claim agreements.

As a result, the original plan recommended by the Peel watershed planning commission should be binding on the Yukon government, says Berger.

Berger filed the lawsuit last January in the Yukon Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs: the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, the Tr'ondek Hwech'in of Dawson City, the Yukon Conservation Society and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

The Yukon government filed its statement of defence last February. It now has until June 9 to file its legal arguments in response to Berger's arguments.

A five-day hearing into the case is scheduled to begin July 7.

The document filed Friday sets out specific and complex legal arguments Berger plans to put forward during the hearing.

The final land use plan recommended by the planning commission in July 2011 called for wilderness protection over 80.6 per cent of the watershed. The plan formally adopted by the government last Jan. 21 calls for wilderness protection over 29 per cent of the watershed, and allows for surface access – roads and bridges, for instance – through much of the watershed.

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

Berger, however, appears to argue the government is also bound by the principle of fair play, which includes proper consultation of any proposed changes to the original recommendation by the planning commission.

That consultation did not occur in a meaningful way, says the document.

In fact, it says, the government's land use plan amounted to a rejection of the original recommendation at the 11th hour.

In developing its plan, the government circulated four options for discussion, but at that point it was not possible for the affected First Nations and the communities to properly digest the proposals, the documents suggests.

Berger points out the four affected First Nations wrote the Yukon government in October 2012 stating their objections to the new proposals.

They argued that to put forward new and sweeping changes at that late stage would undermine the land use planning process set out in the Umbrella Final Agreement, the blueprint for settling land claims agreements in the Yukon.

"The plaintiffs submit that there was manifest unfairness to the affected communities and the First Nations,” says the legal arguments. "Final consultation with each was a requirement of Chapter 11.6 of the UFA.

"The absence of such consultation here, whether with the affected communities or the First Nations or both, was more than an irregularity; it was a breach of a fundamental requirement of the approval process.”

The Yukon Party government has been criticized publicly in the past for not making its views on the Peel known early in the planning process.

Rather, its position was only articulated clearly after the October 2011 territorial election in which it received another majority government, it's been pointed out.

The government, on the other hand, has argued its plan for the Peel provides a more balanced approach to land use planning, with consideration given to both wilderness protection and future development opportunities.

It has also emphasized that with 29 per cent of the Peel given wilderness protection under its plan, the Yukon is now leading Canada as the jurisdiction with the largest percentage of its land mass set aside for wilderness protection.

The debate over the future of the Peel watershed has been heated and divisive over the last five years.

Most visible has been the public lobby effort organized by those supporting maximum wilderness protection for the watershed as called for in the final recommendation by the Peel planning commission.

Another public demonstration against the government's Peel plan will be held at the legislative assembly Thursday, the final day of the spring sitting.

See letter.