The Yukon government maintains it had a simple and straightforward right to reject the Peel land use plan recommended by the planning commission.

There's nothing complicated about the provision that permitted the government to reject and modify the recommended plan, says the Yukon's legal argument in the Peel case, filed Monday afternoon.

The 53-page argument says the final land claim agreements clearly state the Yukon government and First Nations have the right to "approve, reject or modify” land use plans affecting lands under their respective jurisdictions.

When the government rejected the land use plan recommended by the commission, it was simply exercising its right as laid out in the land claim agreements, the government argues.

"Put another way, the First Nations retain the jurisdiction to decide what, if any, regional land use plan will apply on settlement land and the Yukon retains the jurisdiction to determine what, if any, regional land use plan will apply on non-settlement land,” says the document.

The Yukon government rejected the land use plan recommended by the planning commission which called for wilderness protection over 80 per cent of the Peel watershed.

Instead, it passed its own land use plan last Jan. 21 calling for far less wilderness protection with road access permitted across most of the watershed.

A joint lawsuit challenging the government's right to reject the recommended plan and implement its own plan was filed just days after the Yukon government unveiled its land use plan for the Peel.

The Tr'ondek Hwech'in of Dawson City, the First Nation of Na-cho Nyak Dun in Mayo, the Yukon Conservation Society and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society are asking the Yukon Supreme Court to uphold the plan recommended by the commission.

The hearing is scheduled for five days beginning July 7.

The Peel planning process has proved to be a passionate and divisive exercise between those supporting wilderness protection and those supporting mining and other development opportunities in the future.

Renowned lawyer Thomas Berger is handling the case for the two First Nations and the environmental organizations which have amassed several hundred thousand dollars to cover the legal costs.

In his arguments filed last month, Berger says the government was legally bound to the principle of fair play during the Peel land use planning process.

Fair play included full and meaningful consultation by the Yukon government, but that did not happen, says the argument.

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

The legal arguments filed by the government Monday indicate that as far back as 2006, it began voicing its desire for a Peel plan that provided balance between wilderness protection and future economic development interests.

It continued to call for balance through the years, says the document, citing several pieces of correspondence between territorial ministers and First Nations chiefs.

The government argues there is nothing confusing nor hidden in the clause that provides the government and the First Nations with the ability to "approve, reject, or modify” recommended land use plans.

Furthermore, the government argues, the land claim agreements state if a dispute requires an interpretation by the courts, the interpretation is to be made in a normal contractual manner without favour for any party.

"To suggest, as the plaintiffs do, that these words should not be given their plain and natural meaning is to do a disservice to the parties to the final agreements,” says the government's legal arguments regarding "approve, reject, modify.”

The government also points out there is no legal requirement in the final agreements for the government and First Nations to undertake regional land use planning initiatives.

There is a provision in the agreements to conduct regional land use planning and a process set out, but there is nothing stating the parties must conduct a planning exercise, the government points out.

In its conclusion set out in Monday's arguments, the government states:

"Chapter 11 provides a voluntary planning process that ensures that both Government and First Nations can participate in the process and be consulted with respect to any final proposals, but which leaves the ultimate decision-making authority in the hands of Government for Non-Settlement Land and First Nations for Settlement Lands.

"The Peel Lands are almost entirely Non-Settlement Lands. The Yukon Government has consistently stated that it required a balanced approach to planning on these lands.

"When the Commission declined to provide a recommended plan that was balanced, it was open to the Government, after proper consultation to modify the plan to achieve that balance.”