Legal Pleadings
-
- Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 72
- At issue in this case is whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty before Aboriginal rights have been established. Furthermore, do constructive trustees or agents of the Crown owe the same fiduciary duties as the Crown?
-
- Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 72
- At issue in this case is whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty before Aboriginal rights have been established. Furthermore, do constructive trustees or agents of the Crown owe the same fiduciary duties as the Crown?
-
- Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 72
- At issue in this case is whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty before Aboriginal rights have been established. Furthermore, do constructive trustees or agents of the Crown owe the same fiduciary duties as the Crown?
-
- Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 72
- At issue in this case is whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty before Aboriginal rights have been established. Furthermore, do constructive trustees or agents of the Crown owe the same fiduciary duties as the Crown?
-
- Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 72
- At issue in this case is whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty before Aboriginal rights have been established. Furthermore, do constructive trustees or agents of the Crown owe the same fiduciary duties as the Crown?
-
- Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 72
- At issue in this case is whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty before Aboriginal rights have been established. Furthermore, do constructive trustees or agents of the Crown owe the same fiduciary duties as the Crown?
-
- Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.
- Review of decision made by Ministry of Forests to allow forestry activities within traditional territory of Halfway River First Nation.
-
- Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.
- Review of decision made by Ministry of Forests to allow forestry activities within traditional territory of Halfway River First Nation.
-
- Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.)
- The respondents claim to have a right to hunt on lands adjacent to their treaty lands. The argument is based on the utilization of traditional lands used by the claimants ancestors.
-
- Her Majesty the Queen v. Kipp Patrick Kelley
- The Appellant had been charged under the Alberta Wildlife Act while he was teaching his children how to snare squirrels. The Appellant is a Metis person and a member of the Metis Nation of Alberta. There was also an Interim Harvesting Agreement in place between the MNA and Alberta, but the Appellant was still charged. The question was whether there is a constitutionally protected right by the Appellant to teach his children traditional hunting methods.
-
- Houston v. Standingready, [1991] 2 C.N.L.R. 65 (Sask. C.A.)
- The Appellant was dismissed from his job with a company operating on a reserve. He obtained judgment against the company and each of the respondents as directors of the company. The Appellant subsequently commenced garnishee proceedings against the Respondents. The Respondent directors of the company were treaty Indians residing on the reserve; however, their bank accounts were located off the reserve. The issue was whether the property the Appellant sought to garnishee was property situated on the reserve for the purposes of section 89(1) of the Indian Act, and thus immune from garnishment proceedings. This document is the factum of the Appellant.
-
- Houston v. Standingready, [1991] 2 C.N.L.R. 65 (Sask. C.A.)
- The Appellant was dismissed from his job with a company operating on a reserve. He obtained judgment against the company and each of the Respondents as directors of the company. The appellant subsequently commenced garnishee proceedings against the Respondents. The Respondent directors of the company were treaty Indians residing on the reserve; however, their bank accounts were located off the reserve. The issue was whether the money the appellant sought to garnishee was property situated on the reserve for the purposes of section 89(1) of the Indian Act, and thus immune from garnishment proceedings. This document is the factum of the Respondents.