Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: R. v. Friends of the Oldman River Society; Do the provinces and the Government of Canada have a fiduciary duty to consult with First Nations and to uphold its fiduciary and treaty obligations regarding Treaty 7?

: R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 65 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 75 (B.C.C.A.); Donald and William Gladstone make an argument that they possess an aboriginal right to sell herring commercially.

: R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 65 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 75 (B.C.C.A.); Donald and William Gladstone make an argument that they possess an aboriginal right to sell herring commercially.

: R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 65 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 75 (B.C.C.A.); Donald and William Gladstone make an argument that they possess an aboriginal right to sell herring commercially.

: R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 65 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 75 (B.C.C.A.); This is an Intervener factum filed by the counsel of the Interveners in Delgamuukw. It is a factum which 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. Gladstone, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 65 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 75 (B.C.C.A.); Donald and William Gladstone make an argument that they possess an aboriginal right to sell herring commercially.

: R. v. Gladue, [1996] 1 C.N.L.R. 153 (Alta. C.A.), aff’g [1994] 2 C.N.L.R. 101 (Alta. Q.B.); The accused is a Treaty 6 member and was charged with illegally taking fish. The accused did not have a license and was charged under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.F-14.

: 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. 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. 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. Gladue, [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 231 (B.C.C.A.); Glaude centres around the application of 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and how it should be applied to the Appellant in her killing of her common law husband.

: 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?