Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); This is an Intervener factum filed by the counsel of the Interveners in Delgamuukw. It is a factum that discusses two visions of Aboriginal rights, a requirement for recognition of First Nations' societies as contemporary, errors of the court in Van der Peet, denial of a recognition of a commercial activity in Gladstone, failure of the courts to recognize an Aboriginal right to sell fish for the Sheshaht people in NTC Smokehouse and failure to apply the aboriginal perspective in a purposive approach regarding self-government. At issue is the fundamental failure of the Canadian courts to recognize Aboriginal customs, practices and traditions. The pre-sovereinty practice test is not a principled approach in respecting Aboriginal rights.

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); The accused was charged with fishing without a license. The question in this case is whether the Crown justify the infringement of the Aboriginal right to fish?

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); The Appellant Wet'suwet'en Indian, a member of the Moricetown Band, was fishing in the Moricetown canyon, an area where Wet'suwet'en Indians have fished since time immemorial. He was charged with fishing without a licence, contrary to s.4(1) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations. He Maintained that he was fishing under the authority of a Moricetown by-law, passes under the authortity of s.81(1)(o) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 and never rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintained that the by-law did not apply to the place where he was fishing. The Wet'suwet'en have a long history of fishery management and conservation in the area, including controlling, through the hereditary chiefs, who can fish where and when. The Respondent argued that the imposition of the DFO licence was in conflict with the aboriginal rights as guaranteed by s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore of no force and effect.

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); The Appellant Wet'suwet'en Indian, a member of the Moricetown Band, was fishing in the Moricetown canyon, an area where Wet'suwet'en Indians have fished since time immemorial. He was charged with fishing without a licence, contrary to s.4(1) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations. He Maintained that he was fishing under the authority of a Moricetown by-law, passes under the authortity of s.81(1)(o) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 and never rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintained that the by-law did not apply to the place where he was fishing. The Wet'suwet'en have a long history of fishery management and conservation in the area, including controlling, through the hereditary chiefs, who can fish where and when. The Respondent argued that the imposition of the DFO licence was in conflict with the aboriginal rights as guaranteed by s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore of no force and effect.

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); The respondent Wet'suwet'en Indian, a member of the Moricetown Band, was fishing in the Moricetown canyon, an area where Wet'suwet'en Indians have fished since time immemorial. He was charged with fishing without a license, contrary to s.4(1) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations. He Maintained that he was fishing under the authority of a Moricetown by-law, passed under the authority of s.81(1)(o) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 and never rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintained that the by-law did not apply to the place where he was fishing. The Wet'suwet'en have a long history of fishery management and conservation in the area, including controlling through the hereditary chiefs who can fish, where and when. The Respondent argued that the imposition of the DFO license was in conflict with aboriginal rights as guaranteed by s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore of no force and effect.

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); The respondent a Wet'suwet'en Indian, a member of the Moricetown Band, was fishing in the Moricetown canyon, an area where Wet'suwet'en Indians have fished since time immemorial. He was charged with fishing without a licence, contrary to s.4(1) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations. He Maintained that he was fishing under the authority of a Moricetown by-law, passes under the authority of s.81(1)(o) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 and never rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintained that the by-law did not apply to the place where he was fishing. The Wet'suwet'en have a long history of fishery management and conservation in the area, including controlling, through the hereditary chiefs, who can fish, where and when. The respondent argued that the imposition of the DFO licence was in conflict with the aboriginal rights as guaranteed by s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore of no force and effect.

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.); The respondent Wet'suwet'en Indian, a member of the Moricetown Band, was fishing in the Moricetown canyon, an area where Wet'suwet'en Indians have fished since time immemorial. He was charged with fishing without a licence, contrary to s.4(1) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations. He Maintained that he was fishing under the authority of a Moricetown by-law, passes under the authority of s.81(1)(o) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 and never rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintained that the by-law did not apply to the place where he was fishing. The Wet'suwet'en have a long history of fishery management and conservation in the area, including controlling, through the hereditary chiefs, who can fish, where and when. The respondent argued that the imposition of the DFO licence was in conflict with the aboriginal rights as guaranteed by s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore of no force and effect.

: R. v. Nikal, [1996] 3 C.N.L.R. 178 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 117 (B.C.C.A.), which rev’d [19; The respondent, a Wet'suwet'en Indian, and a member of the Moricetown Band, was fishing in the Moricetown canyon, an area where Wet'suwet'en Indians have fished since time immemorial. He was charged with fishing without a license, contrary to s.4(1) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations. He Maintained that he was fishing under the authority of a Moricetown by-law, passes under the authority of s.81(1)(o) of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5 and never rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) maintained that the by-law did not apply to the place where he was fishing. The Wet'suwet'en have a long history of fishery management and conservation in the area, including controlling, through the hereditary chiefs, who can fish where and when. The respondent argued that the imposition of the DFO license was in conflict with the aboriginal rights as guaranteed by s.35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore of no force and effect.

: R. v. Norton, 2005 SKPC 46; The two accused are Metis who were charged with fishing contrary to the federal Fisheries Regulations. The court convicted the accused based on two factors. First, the accused had not demonstrated ongoing participation in Metis culture. Second, they had not demonstrated that they were accepted by a contemporary Metis community as members. This document is judgment of the Provincial Court

: R. v. Norton, 2005 SKPC 46; The two accused are Métis who were charged with fishing contrary to both Provincial and Federal Fishing Regulations. The Court convicted the accused based on two factors. First, the accused had not demonstrated ongoing participation in Métis culture. Second, they had not demonstrated that they were accepted by a contemporary Métis community as members. This document is the Crown's Brief of Law.

: R. v. Peece; This is a case addressing a charge laid against a Treaty 4 member. The charge was laid against the accused for violating the provincial Wildlife Act in Saskatchewan. (The exact date of this submission in estimated.)Volume 1 of 4.

: R. v. Peece; This is a case addressing a charge laid against a Treaty 4 member. The charge was laid against the accused for violating the provincial Wildlife Act in Saskatchewan. (The exact date of this submission in estimated.)Volume 2 of 4.