Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: 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 3 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 4 of 4.

: R. v. Peter Paul, [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. 221 (N.B.C.A.), rev’g (sub nom. R. v. Paul) [1998] 1 C.N.L.R. 20; Mr. Paul is charged with unlawfully removing timber from Crown lands in violation of the Crown Lands and Forests Act in New Brunswick.

: R. v. Poucette; Appeal book for this case which Mark Poucette pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Larry Labelle.

: R. v. Poucette; Mark Poucette of the Stoney Indian Reserve was convicted of manslaughter. At the sentencing hearing, the Court addressed the scope and extent of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This document is the Crown's appeal from the sentence.

: R. v. Poucette; Mark Poucette of the Stoney Indian Reserve was convicted of manslaughter. At the sentencing hearing, the Court addressed the scope and extent of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This document is the Respondent's (Poucette) submissions on the Crown's appeal from the sentence.

: R. v. Powley, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 233 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); The Crown is appealing the decision which recognized Steve and Charles Powley's Aboriginal right to hunt out of season based on section 35(1) of the Constitution. The Powley's are Métis people.

: R. v. Powley, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 233 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Supreme Court of Canada affirming that the Metis of Sault Ste. Marie do have an Aboriginal right to hunt for food.

: R. v. Powley, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 233 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); The Respondents in this case were Metis. They had shot a bull moose for use as their winter meat. They were charged for hunting and possessing a moose without licences contrary to ss. 46 and 47(1) of the Game and Fish Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. G.1. The accused argue that they have a constitutionally protected right to hunt under the Constitution Act, 1982 in s. 35(1).

: R. v. Powley, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 233 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); The Respondents in this case were Metis. They had shot a bull moose for use as their winter meat. They were charged for hunting and possessing a moose without licences contrary to ss. 46 and 47(1) of the Game and Fish Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. G.1. The accused argue that they have a constitutionally protected right to hunt under the Constitution Act, 1982 in s. 35(1).

: R. v. Powley, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 233 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); The Respondents in this case were Metis. They had shot a bull moose for use as their winter meat. They were charged for hunting and possessing a moose without licences contrary to ss. 46 and 47(1) of the Game and Fish Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. G.1. The accused argue that they have a constitutionally protected right to hunt under the Constitution Act, 1982 in s. 35(1).

: R. v. Powley, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 291 (Ont. C.A.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 233 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); This is the first case to reach this Court that will consider the Aboriginal rights of the Métis under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Respondents, Steve Powley and his son Roddy Charles Powley, were charged with unlawfully hunting moose and unlawful possession of moose meat on October 22, 1993, contrary to ss. 46 and 47(1) of the Game and Fish Act. The facts with respect to the hunting and possession were entered into evidence at trial by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Powleys asserted that they were Métis and that their hunting and possession were the exercise of an Aboriginal and/or treaty right to hunt qua Métis.