Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: R. v. Brertton, [2000] 1 C.N.L.R. 201 (Alta. C.A.), aff’g [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (Alta. Q.B.); The accused is a member of Treaty 6 and shot a big horn sheep after he had entered a mineral lease area. The accused appeals the decision based on the Badger \visible incompatible use\" test. The accused seeks a remedy that affirms his right to hunt per the NRTA. "

: R. v. Campbell, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 120 (Man. C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 91 (Man. Q.B.); Mr. Campbell was charged with being intoxicated on the Moose Lake Indian Reserve contrary to Band by-law under s. 85.1(4) of the Indian Act. Mr. Campbell asserts that his Charter rights have been violated under ss. 7 and 15.

: R. v. Campbell, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 120 (Man. C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 91 (Man. Q.B.); Mr. Campbell was charged with being intoxicated on the Moose Lake Indian Reserve contrary to Band by-law under s. 85.1(4) of the Indian Act. Mr. Campbell asserts that his Charter rights have been violated under ss. 7 and 15. This document is Book 2 of the Book of Authorities for this case. Exact filing date for this case is unknown.

: R. v. Campbell, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 120 (Man. C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 91 (Man. Q.B.); Mr. Campbell was charged with being intoxicated on the Moose Lake Indian Reserve contrary to Band by-law under s. 85.1(4) of the Indian Act. Mr. Campbell asserts that his Charter rights have been violated under ss. 7 and 15. This document is Book 1 of the Book of Authorities for this case. Exact filing date for this case is unknown.

: R. v. Campbell, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 120 (Man. C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 91 (Man. Q.B.); Mr. Campbell was charged with being intoxicated on the Moose Lake Indian Reserve contrary to Band by-law under s. 85.1(4) of the Indian Act. Mr. Campbell asserts that his Charter rights have been violated under ss. 7 and 15. This document is Book 3 of the Book of Authorities for this case. Exact filing date for this case is unknown.

: R. v. Campbell, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 120 (Man. C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 91 (Man. Q.B.); Mr. Campbell was charged with being intoxicated on the Moose Lake Indian Reserve contrary to Band by-law under s. 85.1(4) of the Indian Act. Mr. Campbell asserts that his Charter rights have been violated under ss. 7 and 15. This document is Book 4 of the Book of Authorities for this case. Exact filing date for this case is unknown.

: R. v. Carratt, [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 125 (Sask. Q.B.); This document is a transcript of a provincial court proceeding addressing the Gladue requirements on sentencing an Aboriginal offender.

: R. v. Catcheway; The Appellants are members of the Waterhen Indian First Nation and were charged with willful obstruction and interference with persons in the lawful use of a Provincial road; possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace; wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offense; and mischief. The Appellants were convicted in Queen's Bench without representation from council. The Appellants filed an appeal based on bias on the part of the judge. One of the key points at issue is that the Court of Appeal for Manitoba erred in denying an adjournment so the Appellants could bring a motion to admit new evidence to establish bias on the part of the Trial Judge.

: R. v. Catcheway; The Appellants are members of the Waterhen Indian First Nation and were charged with willful obstruction and interference with persons in the lawful use of a Provincial road; possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace; wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offense; and mischief. The Appellants were convicted in Queen's Bench without representation from council. The Appellants filed an appeal based on bias on the part of the judge. One of the key points at issue is that the Court of Appeal for Manitoba erred in denying an adjournment so the Appellants could bring a motion to admit new evidence to establish bias on the part of the Trial Judge. [The date of this factum is estimated since it is not listed in the document].

: R. v. Côté, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 26 (S.C.C.); Algonquin Indians were charged with violating the Quebec Fishing Regulations. The accused argue that their fishing practices are protected by the Constitution.

: R. v. Flett, [1991] 1 C.N.L.R. 140 (Man. C.A.), aff'g [1989] 4 C.N.L.R. 128 (Man. Q.B.); A question as to whether the Migratory Birds Convention Act infringes the rights under Treaty 5 held by the accused.

: R. v. Flett, [1991] 1 C.N.L.R. 140 (Man. C.A.), aff'g [1989] 4 C.N.L.R. 128 (Man. Q.B.),; A question as to whether the Migratory Birds Convention Act infringes the rights under Treaty 5 held by the accused.