Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: R. v. Gladue, [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 231 (B.C.C.A.); Did the B.C. Court of Appeal err in its application of s. 718(2)(e) of the Criminal Code to an Aboriginal offender? Was the trial judge wrong not to consider the special circumstances of an Aboriginal offender?

: R. v. Goodstoney, 1999 ABCA 110; The First Nations Respondent was convicted of criminal negligence and criminal negligence causing death in relation to a motor vehicle accident. Along with more general sentencing principles and Criminal Code provisions, the Court dealt with the applicability of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed the sentence. The Respondent also cross-appealed the sentence. Both appeals were dismissed. This document is the submission of the Crown Appellant.

: R. v. Horse, [1988] 2 C.N.L.R. 112, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 197; The appellants were charged under the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act for using a spotlight while hunting. The Appellants were hunting on privately owned lands. There was no posting on the lands with respect to hunting or trespassing. The Appellants were Treaty Indians hunting for food. At issue was whether a right of access to the lands for the purpose of hunting arose from The Wildlife Act, from Treaty No. 6 or from custom and usage, therefore providing immunity from prosecution through paragraph 12 of the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. This document is the factum of the Appellants.

: R. v. Horse, [1988] 2 C.N.L.R. 112, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 197; The appellants were charged under the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act for using a spotlight while hunting. The appellants were hunting on privately owned lands. There was no posting on the lands with respect to hunting or trespassing. The appellants were Treaty Indians hunting for food. At issue was whether a right of access to the lands for the purpose of hunting arose from The Wildlife Act, from Treaty No. 6 or from custom and usage, therefore providing immunity from prosecution through paragraph 12 of the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. This document is the factum of the Crown.

: R. v. Houvinen; A group of Aboriginal people were charged with violating the B.C. Fisheries Act [25(1)] for fishing during a closed time, fishing for salmon with a gill net during a closed time and being in possession of chum salmon. The point at issue is whether Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses Regulations represents an illegal dispensation of the law in favour of Aboriginal people in B.C.

: R. v. Houvinen; A group of Aboriginal people were charged with violating the B.C. Fisheries Act [25(1)] for fishing during a closed time, fishing for salmon with a gill net during a closed time, and being in possession of chum salmon. The point at issue is whether Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses Regulations represents an illegal dispensation of the law in favour of Aboriginal people in B.C.

: R. v. Houvinen; A group of Aboriginal people were charged with violating the B.C. Fisheries Act [25(1)] for fishing during a closed time, fishing for salmon with a gill net during a closed time, and being in possession of chum salmon. The point at issue is whether Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses Regulations represents an illegal dispensation of the law in favour of Aboriginal people in B.C.

: R. v. Houvinen; A group of Aboriginal people were charged with violating the B.C. Fisheries Act [25(1)] for fishing during a closed time, fishing for salmon with a gill net during a closed time, and being in possession of chum salmon. The point at issue is whether Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses Regulations represents an illegal dispensation of the law in favour of Aboriginal people in B.C.

: R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.); Question as to whether the Treaty of 1923 extinguished off reserve fishing rights. (The exact date of these submissions is not known)

$R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.)$: R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.); Question as to whether the Treaty of 1923 extinguished off reserve fishing rights volume 1. (The exact date of these submissions is not known)

$R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.)$: R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.); Question as to whehter the Treaty of 1923 extinguished off reserve fishing rights volume III. (The exact date of these sumissions is not known).

$R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.)$: R. v. Howard, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 122 (Ont. C.A.); Question as to whether the Treaty of 1923 extinguished off reserve fishing rights volume 4. (The exact date of these submissions is not known).