Green groups and political parties reacted with relief and elation to an unprecedented Yukon Supreme Court ruling on the future of the Peel River watershed.

Plaintiffs and opposition leaders applauded the decision, which effectively favours protection of the untrammeled region.

It stresses “a large and liberal interpretation” of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) along with the “honour of the Crown.”

“We are very happy to see the courts honour and uphold the integrity of the UFA and Yukon First Nation agreements, said Chief Ed Champion of the First Nation of Na-cho Nyak Dun.

Chief Roberta Joseph of the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in added: “The Peel River watershed is as sacred to our people as it was to our ancestors, and through this decision today, we have ensured it will remain so for our grandchildren.”

“We’re so excited,” said Christina Macdonald, the executive director of the Yukon Conservation Society, one of the four parties to the suit against the government.

“This is a wonderful victory not just for the plaintiffs, but for Yukoners and people across Canada and beyond who have given so much of their time and their energy and their support.

“We’re absolutely thrilled,” she added. “I would call it a home run.”

Already, the possibility of a government appeal of Justice Ron Veale’s decision looms, with the NDP urging the Yukon Party in the legislature today to accept its implications.

“We’ve won this one, and we believe we can win again if indeed the government pursues an appeal,” Macdonald said.

“But we urge them to consider carefully. The majority of the Yukon people have spoken loud and clear in support of the commission’s final recommended plan, and now the courts have ruled in our favour, so why pursue this further?”

“The government will carefully review today’s decision before determining how to move forward and will assess implications of the judgment on land use planning and the economic future in Yukon,” the cabinet said in a statement today.

“As we examine the court’s opinion and the reasons given by the judge, we will continue to work with First Nations, consulting and engaging on many ongoing files, projects and activities.

“The Government of Yukon remains committed to upholding the Final Agreements.”

Gill Cracknell, the executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s Yukon branch, said CPAWS is “absolutely thrilled” with Veale’s judgement, made available on the Yukon Courts website at 9 a.m. today.

“It’s a huge victory for the Peel, for First Nations and the land claims agreements, and for the democratic process,” Cracknell said in an interview.

“We’ll be rallying Yukoners again to come out and tell the government how they feel about the recommended plan.”

Justice Veale sided almost entirely with the plaintiffs, concluding the government violated the land use planning process laid out in the UFA during talks over the future of the Peel.

The process will now return to the final round of consultation with First Nations and the public.

The government will be limited to the modifications it proposed at an early stage of the dialogue, but the question of the amount of land protected and the question of access are off limits.

“We’re very pleased at this outcome,” said pioneering aboriginal rights lawyer Tom Berger and head counsel to the plaintiffs.

“It is, of course, in keeping with the path the Supreme Court of Canada has laid out for dealing with these cases. And the result is of course that the land use planning process in the Yukon, which is community-based and collaborative, has been vindicated.

“The government can’t simply at the last minute, after years of work, years of hearings, trash the commission’s report and go ahead with its own plan,” said Berger, who also headed the famous Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry in the mid-1970s, known as the Berger Inquiry.

“I think it’s a victory for all Yukoners, and it’s a victory for legal process. Legal process isn’t just a technical thing; it’s a means by which land use planning in the Yukon is to involve not only the government but also First Nations and all Yukoners,” he added.

The litigation revolved around the parties’ interpretation of the land-use planning process outlined in Chapter 11 of the UFA — a comprehensive framing document incorporated into each of the land claim agreements between “treatied” First Nations and the government.

“We’re thrilled,” Opposition Leader Liz Hanson in an interview today. “I don’t think there’s another word that we could use.

“I think it sends a fine message (to industry).

“Given the fiasco that the Yukon Party has made out of YESAA (Yukon Economic and Socio-economic Assessment Act), there’s an opportunity for them to extend an olive branch and to try to build on the spirit of reconciliation that’s at the heart of Yukon governance and our territory.”