Ryan Leef may have made a "dumb mistake" when he put incorrect information on a hunting report, but he didn't willfully break the law nor try to deceive anyone, a territorial court judge decided Thursday afternoon.

Leef had been charged with using an ATV for hunting in a vehicle-restricted area, and falsifying an Outfitter/Chief Guide/Hunter (OHE) report.

Two days into the the three-day trial, the first charge was thrown out for a complete lack of evidence.

The next day, Judge Cunliffe Barnett heard both sides' final arguments on the remaining charge.

Defence lawyer Nicholas Weigelt argued in his closing submissions that in entering the wrong sub-zone on the OHE, Leef made a mistake - an unfortunate mistake, but a mistake.

Leef, he said, should not be burdened with the stigma that comes with a conviction for such an offence.

It's not just the penalty under the wildlife regulations, but the tarnish attached to the notion that he, as a big game outfitter, issued a false and misleading hunting report, the defence lawyer suggested.

"Whilst this is a straight liability offence, I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that it is highly stigmatic."

Weigelt reminded the judge in his closing submissions how Leef, Greg McHale and their two hunters had been delayed at the base camp on Kluane Lake for two days because nasty weather had created deadly boating conditions.

The sudden squeeze of time to get the Ontario and Colorado clients back to Whitehorse to catch their Nov. 2, 2008 flights opened the door for a simple and honest error, he said.

Weigelt said the four were at Environment Yukon's offices on Burns Road completing the paperwork, with a treacherous crossing of Kluane Lake fresh in their minds.

The trophies were being processed.

It was busy.

The first flight for one hunter was an hour away.

It was an atmosphere, Weigelt suggested, ripe for such an error.

And Leef simply made a mistake.

"Things happen; mistakes happen," he said. "To err is human."

It would be an entirely different matter if he'd had a record for tardiness, but that is not the case at all, Weigelt told the judge.

"As your honour noted, Mr. Leef was quite candid about this mistake," he said. "It was an unfortunate mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

"In my submission, it certainly was not a deliberate act," Weigelt concluded.

The territorial prosecutor, however, told Barnett the hunting report in question is an important document to wildlife managers.

Yukon outfitters, Crown counsel Zeb Brown pointed out in his closing submissions, earn the right to a commercial hunting monopoly in a particular area for a $250 annual fee.

The only requirement to maintain such a good business venture is that they follow the rules and fill out paperwork correctly, he argued.

Brown said it is a serious responsibility, and the outfitter is obligated to ensure the hunting report is filled out correctly.

The miscue was not trivial, he said, arguing it was an error that goes straight to the quality of information the government was provided.

Leef and company were not being battered about by bad weather when they filled out the report, Brown said.

He said they were sitting in a nice, warm office in Whitehorse with a map of the different sub-zones right in front of them.

It is the responsibility of the outfitter, Brown insisted, to take the necessary time and care to ensure the document is filled out correctly.

He said they couldn't fill the forms out in the field while they waited two days for the weather to break, because Leef had a practice of keeping the documents at his Whitehorse home.

McHale might have caught the mistake when he provided the recommended second verification signature on the hunting report, but evidence before the court indicated the form was not complete when McHale signed off on it, he said.

"In my submission, these circumstances are largely of their own making."

The information, said Brown, was important information, and it was false.

"That should be sufficient in itself to make a decision."

But the judge saw it differently.

The definition of "false" he said, "is something more than a statement that is incorrect."

To say something is false, is to say the purpose is to mislead.

Cunliffe said that although Leef may have been a bit careless when filling out the OHE, the evidence before him showed it was an honest mistake.

He accepted the evidence that as they rushed to fill out the hunting documents, Leef and McHale were still distracted by their harrowing trip across Kluane Lake.

As the outfitter, Leef filled out the required documents and McHale signed on the dotted line.

Here, the judge said, they could have both taken an extra moment to make sure everything was correct, but their oversight was not one that deserves punishment.

When questioned two weeks later by the investigating conservation officer about where the sheep was killed, Leef pointed out the actual spot on a map without hesitation, the judge found.

Furthermore, Barnett said, the hunt in question was being filmed for a big game hunting TV program. Leef knew that, and would also have known that any local conservation officers would recognize the area immediately and see the mistake if they looked at the OHE.

"It is simply inconceivable that Mr. Leef was trying to fool anybody and conceal the actual hunt location," the judge said.

In making his ruling, Barnett, who hails from the interior of B.C. and is a hunter himself, stressed the importance of hunters documenting their kills.

"The forms have a real purpose," he said. "There is a very proper need to monitor where wildlife has been hunted in the Yukon, and how many animals have been hunted successfully by non-resident hunters."

The investigation into the complaints, he said, was fair and valid. He left it open as to whether the evidence warranted charges and a full-scale trial.

After the trial, both Leef and McHale said they were relieved to have it done with, but obviously wished it had never happened.

"It was disappointing," Leef said.

"How often is someone taken to court over one incorrect OHE?" he asked, pointing out that he has no past record of breaching the Wildlife Act.

"In my opinion, these charges never should have been laid."

"I never should have been here in the first place," added McHale, who had only been charged with the ATV infraction. "They didn't even have any evidence. I felt I was caught up in a personal run on Ryan."

The two men, both of whom are former RCMP officers, also thought the issue of their past employment was blown way out of proportion.

"I would hate this to be seen as some sort of animosity between the CO service and the RCMP," he said. "We need the two agencies to work together."

By Justine Davidson

and Chuck Tobin

Star Reporters