Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 3 C.N.L.R. 214 (S.C.C.); Two cases on logging - one from Nova Scotia (R. v. Marshall) and one from New Brunswick (R. v. Bernard) were heard together by the Supreme Court of Canada. The claims were based on Aboriginal title, treaty rights and the Royal Proclamation of 1763." Summary extract from Shin Imai and Jennifer Sander, "2008 Annotated Indian Act and Aboriginal Constitutional Provisions" (Toronto: Thomsom-Carswell, 2008), 538. The submission date of this Intervenor Factum is estimated."

: R. v. Moccasin; R. v. Night, 2006 SKCA 5; The accused defrauded their First Nation of large amounts of Treaty Land Entitlement money. At trial, they were sentenced to two years less a day to be served in the community. The Crown appealed the sentences on the basis that they were demonstrably unfit. The Court applied section 718(2)(e) of the Criminal Code. This provision provides that all available sanctions other than imprisonment must be seriously considered, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. This document is the factum of the Appellant (Crown).

: R. v. Moccasin; R. v. Night, 2006 SKCA 5; The accused defrauded their First Nation of large amounts of Treaty Land Entitlement money. At trial, they were sentenced to two years less a day, to be served in the community. The Crown appealed the sentences on the basis that they were demonstrably unfit. The Court applied section 718(2)(e) of the Criminal Code. This provision provides that all available sanctions other than imprisonment must be seriously considered, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. This document is judgment of the court.

: R. v. Moses; Reasoning given for the allowance of a sentencing circle for an Aboriginal offender.

: R. v. Moyan, 2000 ABCA 50; A member of the Michel Indian Band, the Appellant was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine). The Appellant was sentenced to 8 months of incarceration. The Court addressed the scope and extent of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This document is the Appellant's appeal from that sentence. The appeal from the sentence was dismissed.

: R. v. Moyan, 2000 ABCA 50; A member of the Michel Indian Band, the appellant was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine). The Court addressed the scope and extent of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. The Appellant was sentenced to 8 months of incarceration. This document is the Crown- Respondent's submission at the sentence appeal. The appeal from the sentence was dismissed.

: R. v. Murdock (M.) and Johnson (S.G.), [1997] 2 C.N.L.R. 103 (N.S.C.A.); Whether the Tobacco Tax Act in Nova Scotia is applicable to the Mi'Kmaq and other First Nations people of Nova Scotia.

: R. v. Murdock (M.) and Johnson (S.G.), [1997] 2 C.N.L.R. 103 (N.S.C.A.); Whether the Tobacco Tax Act in Nova Scotia is applicable to the Mi\\'Kmaq and other First Nations people of Nova Scotia.

: R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 130 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. 158 (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. Neve; The Appellant, a prostitute, was convicted of robbery arising from taking another prostitute to a location outside the City of Edmonton, removing the complainant's clothes and purse and leaving the complainant in a field naked. This was done to punish the complainant and to bring her under \control\". The Appellant was arrested during the same morning and made oral statements acknowledging her involvement in the offence and her motives. The Appellant was notified of her right to counsel but was not cautioned."

: R. v. Neve; The Appellant, a prostitute, was convicted of robbery arising from taking another prostitute to a location outside the city of Edmonton, removing the complainant\\'s clothes and purse and leaving the complainant in a field naked. This was done to punish the complainant and to bring her under control. The Appellant was arrested during the same morning and made oral statements acknowledging her involvement in the offence and her motives. The Appellant was notified of her right to counsel but was not cautioned.

: 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.