Calder V. British Columbia Attorney General [1973] SCR 313
Calder case is a pacesetter for aboriginal jurisprudence in Canadian supreme court. It is the first to recognize that aboriginal title to land exist as a sui generis type of right in Canada at the time of time of the Royal Proclamation Order of 1763 and does not devolve from the colonial, Crown law, treaty or statute.
The main issue for determination in this case was whether Crown authority lawfully extinguished the aboriginal title to the ancestral land occupied by the Nisga’a tribe that pre-existed at the time of the Royal Proclamation Order of 1763. The case was ended as a deadlock, the court split three to three in favor and against the appeal, while the seventh judge dismissed …show more content…
Recognised treaty right of first nations to fish, hunt or gather can be moderated by the Province and cannot be exercised in abeyance of the authority of the Canadian State or the Province authority.
Delgamuukw V British Columbia [1997] 3SCR 1010
This case was instituted as a representative action for and on behalf of the Gitksen or Wet’suwaten hereditary chiefs and on behalf of their houses claiming aboriginal rights, ownership and jurisdiction over approximately 58,000 square kilometers of land in BC.
The plaintiffs relied on among others in proving their claims by oral evidence detailing their connection to the land, historical use of the land in question from time immemorial, and ownership over the large tracts of land in question. The issues brought before the court are whether provincial law extinguish aboriginal title and was is the nature protection of aboriginal title under S. 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution …show more content…
It is immaterial that Mi’kmaq first nation people have gathered and used firewood cut from the forest in the area, but in as much as the lands in question remain Crown lands, unauthorized logging without the appropriate provincial licence is a punishable offence by
Calder case is a pacesetter for aboriginal jurisprudence in Canadian supreme court. It is the first to recognize that aboriginal title to land exist as a sui generis type of right in Canada at the time of time of the Royal Proclamation Order of 1763 and does not devolve from the colonial, Crown law, treaty or statute.
The main issue for determination in this case was whether Crown authority lawfully extinguished the aboriginal title to the ancestral land occupied by the Nisga’a tribe that pre-existed at the time of the Royal Proclamation Order of 1763. The case was ended as a deadlock, the court split three to three in favor and against the appeal, while the seventh judge dismissed …show more content…
Recognised treaty right of first nations to fish, hunt or gather can be moderated by the Province and cannot be exercised in abeyance of the authority of the Canadian State or the Province authority.
Delgamuukw V British Columbia [1997] 3SCR 1010
This case was instituted as a representative action for and on behalf of the Gitksen or Wet’suwaten hereditary chiefs and on behalf of their houses claiming aboriginal rights, ownership and jurisdiction over approximately 58,000 square kilometers of land in BC.
The plaintiffs relied on among others in proving their claims by oral evidence detailing their connection to the land, historical use of the land in question from time immemorial, and ownership over the large tracts of land in question. The issues brought before the court are whether provincial law extinguish aboriginal title and was is the nature protection of aboriginal title under S. 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution …show more content…
It is immaterial that Mi’kmaq first nation people have gathered and used firewood cut from the forest in the area, but in as much as the lands in question remain Crown lands, unauthorized logging without the appropriate provincial licence is a punishable offence by