Aboriginal rights and litigation: history and future of court decisions in Canada

Polar Record ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (152) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Douglas Elias
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Native Title ◽  
Successful Case ◽  
The Supreme Court

AbstractRecent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitution Act 1982, and the establishment of the Office of Native Claims, would seem to have assured the rapid settlement of outstanding issues regarding aboriginal rights and native title to lands. More recently, the seeming abandonment by government of political and negotiated resolution of these issues has left litigation as the remaining recourse for native groups to protect their interests. The courts, however, have become increasingly demanding in terms of what must be proven in order to make a successful case at law. It is predicted that the costs and technical difficulties of providing such proofs will limit the number of rights cases before the courts, and the chances of success for those that are mounted.

scholarly journals Settling the Fisheries: Pre-Confederation Crown Policy in Upper Canada and the Supreme Court's decisions in R. v. NIKAL and LEWIS

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-172
Author(s):  
Peggy J. Blair
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Upper Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Fishing Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject

Although a casual reading of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Nikal and R. v. Lewis might suggest otherwise, this article will argue that Court's decisions in two recent British Columbia aboriginal fishing cases do not apply in Ontario. In doing so, it will be shown that the Supreme Court of Canada relied on evidence of historic Crown policies towards aboriginal fishing rights in Upper Canada in the absence of appropriate context as to when, how and why those policies evolved. As a result, the Court wrongly concluded that fisheries could not be the subject of exclusive aboriginal rights.

Recent Developments in Canadian Aboriginal Law: Overview of Case Law and of Certain Principles of Aboriginal Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-350
Author(s):  
Patricia Ochman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Aboriginal Law

AbstractThe author reviews the most recent judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada and certain provincial courts, in order to provide an update in the sphere of Aboriginal law practice in Canada, destined mainly for foreign lawyers and academics. Throughout the review of those recent judgments, the author provides an overview of certain key principles and concepts of Canadian Aboriginal law. Besides providing an overview of recent judgments in the sphere of Aboriginal law, the author seeks to illustrate how meaningful the protection and recognition of Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are in practice, through the overview of key concepts and principles of Canadian Aboriginal law and how they were recently interpreted by Canadian courts. The author briefly addresses Canada's vote against the adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

scholarly journals Dizzying Dialogue: Canadian Courts and the Continuing Justification of the Dispossession Of Aboriginal People

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
D’Arcy Vermette
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Aboriginal People ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Peuples Autochtones

Since Aboriginal rights have found protection within Canada’s Constitution, a new relationship has emerged between Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown. This relationship is characterized by the need for “reconciliation.” In its growing jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada applies reconciliation doctrine to several important Aboriginal claims. Each application, however, brings with it a restriction on Aboriginal rights. This paper argues that the Court’s conception of reconciliation is designed to facilitate the integration of Aboriginal peoples into larger society rather than to protect their collective interests. To demonstrate this argument, this paper examines the Supreme Court’s discussion of the doctrine of reconciliation from Sparrow (1990) to Little Salmon (2010).Depuis que les droits des autochtones sont protégés par la constitution canadienne, une nouvelle relation, ayant comme caractéristique le besoin de « réconciliation », a vu le jour entre les peuples autochtones du Canada et la Couronne. La Cour suprême du Canada a appliqué la doctrine de la réconciliation dans la série d’arrêts où elle s’est penchée sur plusieurs importantes revendications autochtones. Dans chaque cas, l’application de la doctrine de la réconciliation a cependant abouti à une restriction des droits des autochtones. Dans cet article, l’auteur soutient que, dans l’esprit de la Cour, la réconciliation vise à faciliter l’intégration des peuples autochtones dans la société en général plutôt qu’à protéger leurs intérêts collectifs. Pour étayer cette opinion, il examine l’analyse qu’a faite la Cour suprême de la doctrine de réconciliation de l’arrêt Sparrow (1990) à l’arrêt Little Salmon (2010).

On the breach: Identifying infringements of section 35 rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerry Wilkins
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Substitution Effects ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
Critical Scrutiny

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has said, protects existing Aboriginal and treaty rights from unjustified infringement at the hands of federal and provincial legislatures and governments. To give meaningful effect to section 35’s protection, we need, therefore, to understand what counts as infringement of such rights and why. The Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence to date on this question, alas, disappoints; it does not withstand close critical scrutiny. This article calls attention to several shortcomings and inconsistencies in that jurisprudence and proposes for initial consideration a more inclusive approach to infringement identification, one that draws a sharper distinction between the infringement and justification inquiries. Adoption of such an approach, however, could have unwelcome substitution effects, prompting cautious courts to be more selective when asked to authenticate future claims of Aboriginal right, more penurious when construing the constitutionally protected scope of particular treaty or Aboriginal rights and/or more generous to governments during the justification inquiry. If the goal is to optimize the protection that Canadian constitutional law affords to treaty and Aboriginal rights, we shall need to be mindful of the interdependence among the authentication, infringement, and justification inquiries, and we shall need to understand much more clearly than we currently do just where the outer limits are beyond which mainstream Canadian law cannot, or will not, countenance Indigenous ways and why.

Aboriginal Rights and Sustainable Development in Canada

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-186
Author(s):  
Jane Matthews Glenn ◽  
Anne C. Drost
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Agricultural Area ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Aboriginal Title

This article explores briefly the relation between aboriginal rights and sustainable development in Canada, using as a vehicle for discussion the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.1 This case involved claims by the Houses of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, comprising some 6,000 to 7,000 persons, to aboriginal title over separate portions of approximately 58,000 square kilometres of land in the interior of British Columbia. The territory is a rich agricultural area with vast forests and abundant wildlife.

scholarly journals Defining Parameters: Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights, and the Sparrow Justificatory Test

1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
Leonard I. Rotman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Federal Legislation ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Straightforward Application ◽  
The Supreme Court

In the case of R. v. Sparrow, the Supreme Court of Canada created a justificatory scheme for federal legislation that had the potential to derogate from the rights of the Aboriginal peoples that are protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Since that time, the Sparrow test has been applied to both Aboriginal and treaty rights. The author suggests that the straightforward application of the Sparrow test to treaty rights is inappropriate because of the significant distinctions between Aboriginal and treaty rights. Where there is a need to balance treaty rights with competing rights, any justificatory standard to be applied ought to be consistent with the consensual basis of Crown- Native treaties.

scholarly journals Commentary on “Adhesion to Canadian Indian Treaties and the Lubicon Lake Dispute”

1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-212
Author(s):  
Kent McNeil
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Canadian Journal ◽  
Law And Society ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Western Canada ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Unexplored Area ◽  
Aboriginal Title

Thomas Flanagan's article on adhesion to Indian treaties in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Law and Society is a bold foray into a virtually unexplored area of aboriginal rights. Although adhesions to most of the eleven Numbered Treaties in northern and western Canada were common, as Flanagan points out, not much attention has been paid to them. The matter is nonetheless of major importance for many aboriginal peoples, as was demonstrated by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last year that the Teme-Augama Anishnabai had surrendered their aboriginal title by adhesion to the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty. There can be little doubt that the issue is going to arise more frequently as other aboriginal peoples challenge the application of treaties to their ancestral lands.

Throughput Legitimacy and the Duty to Consult: The Limits of the Law to Produce Quality Interactions in British Columbia's EA Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 577-595
Author(s):  
Minh Do
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Environmental Assessments ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe duty to consult mandates that the Crown must consult affected Indigenous parties when Crown action may negatively impact Aboriginal rights or title claims. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has emphasized that the duty should be characterized by honourable dealings and good faith negotiations. This article argues that the concept of throughput legitimacy can help evaluate the Crown's conduct in consultation. By analyzing 131 British Columbia Environmental Assessments (BC EAs), this article finds that the Crown struggles to uphold throughput legitimacy from the perspective of Indigenous peoples, particularly in the areas of transparency, accountability and effectiveness.

De facto and de jure Crown Sovereignty: Reconciliation and Legitimation at the Supreme Court of Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Ryan Beaton
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Short Story ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Shed Light

This paper offers a short story of Crown sovereignty at the Supreme Court Canada in order to shed light on questions the Court has raised about the legitimacy of Crown sovereignty over territory claimed by First Nations. In skeletal form, the story is simple. The Crown — first Imperial British and later Canadian federal and provincial — asserted sovereignty over what is now Canadian territory, and Canadian courts (and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) accepted those assertions without question. Yet the Supreme Court of Canada has lately qualified Crown sovereignty in striking ways, perhaps most notably in speaking of “de facto Crown sovereignty” in reasons released in 2004.The purpose behind this qualification, in line with the Court’s Aboriginal rights and title cases since Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General), seems to be to encourage the Crown to negotiate modern treaties and settle outstandingAboriginal rights and title claims in order to perfect or legitimate Crown sovereignty. As Crown negotiations with First Nations stalled, however, the Court proceeded to develop its own framework for the procedural legitimation of Crown sovereignty, i.e. a framework of procedural safeguards designed to weed out “bad” exercises of Crown sovereignty from legitimate ones.

scholarly journals No Middle Ground: Ad Medium Filum Aquae, Aboriginal Fishing Rights, and the Supreme Court of Canada's Decisions in Nikal and Lewis

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-597
Author(s):  
Peggy J. Blair
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Aboriginal Peoples ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Aboriginal Rights ◽  
Fishing Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article will argue that in two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada which considered the ad medium filum aquae presumptions, the Court wrongly concluded that exclusive aboriginal fishing rights were not "granted" by the Crown and therefore did not exist in waters adjacent to reserves. It will show that in both Nikal and Lewis, the Court relied on highly technical European laws which are inappropriate where aboriginal laws and perspectives are required to be taken into account. By accepting historically discriminatory policies of the Crown to prove the existence of aboriginal rights, it will be argued that the Court ignored the pre-existing rights and title of aboriginal peoples.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document