Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: R. v. Sundown, [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 289 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 241 (Sask. C.A.), which aff’d; This is a Reply for an Application for a Leave to Appeal by the Crown in R. v. Sundown. Sundown deals with the question of whether park officials can use The Parks Act 1991 stop a member of Treaty 6 from building a log cabin in a provincial park for traditional purposes?

: R. v. Sundown, [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 289 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 241 (Sask. C.A.), which aff’d; Sundown deals with the question of whether park officials can use The Parks Act 1991 to stop a member of Treaty 6 from building a log cabin in a provincial park for traditional purposes?

: R. v. Sundown, [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 289 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 241 (Sask. C.A.), which aff’d; Sundown deals with the question of whether park officials can use The Parks Act 1991 stop a member of Treaty 6 from building a log cabin in a provincial park for traditional purposes?

: R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 177 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 221 (B.C.C.A.); The Factum of the Appellant is arguing that the Sto:lo have an Aboriginal right to sell fish commercially. The Crown admitted there is an Aboriginal right to fish for the Sto:lo, but there is no right for a commercial enterprise in the fishery under constitutional rights.

: R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 177 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 221 (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. Vincent, [1993] 2 C.N.L.R. 165 (Ont. C.A.); Whether article III of the Jay Treaty is a right which is affirmed and recognized in s.35 of the Constitution. Whether the Respondent has met the justification for infringement of of the Appellant's exercise of rights under s.35 of the Constitution.

: R. v. Vincent, [1993] 2 C.N.L.R. 165 (Ont. C.A.); Whether article III of the Jay treaty is a right that is affirmed and recognized in s.35 of the Constitution. Whether the Respondent has met the justification for infringement of of the Appellant\\'s exercise of rights under s.35 of the Constitution.

: R. v. Wawatie; Whether the accused is protected by traditional rights to hunt against criminal prosecution.

: R. v. Wawatie; Whether the accused is protected by traditional rights to hunt against criminal prosecution.

: R. v. Williams, [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. 257 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 153 (B.C.C.A.),; The accused is a member of the Ohiat Band who is charged with robbing a Pizza restaurant in Victoria. At issue is the bias of the jurors selected. The Crown argues that the decision of the lower court should stand. The Crown contends that a juror will act according to his or her oath and presumption will be displaced. Point at issue for the Crown is when and how ss. 638 to 640 of the Criminal Code should be considered.

: R. v. Williams, [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. 257 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 153 (B.C.C.A.),; The African Canadian Legal Clinic argues as an intervener that the B.C. Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge\\'s finding about the potential for impartiality of jurors. It is contended that the court incorrectly applied the threshold test for s. 638.1(b) of the Criminal Code and imposed the evidentiary burden upon the accused to demonstrate racial partiality on the part of jurors.

: R. v. Williams, [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. 257 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 153 (B.C.C.A.), which aff’; The accused is a member of the Ohiat Band who is charged with robbing a Pizza restaurant in Victoria. At issue is the bias of the jurors selected. The Crown argues that the decision of the lower court should stand. The Crown contends that a juror will act according to his or her oath and presumption will be displaced. Point at issue for the Crown is when and how ss. 638 to 640 of the Criminal Code should be considered.