Legal Pleadings
-
- 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.)
- 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.
-
- 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 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.)
- 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 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. (The exact date of this pleading is not known.)
-
- 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.)
- Crown is appealing the decision which recognized Steve and Charles Powley's Métis Aboriginal right to hunt out of season based on section 35(1) of the Constitution.
-
- 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.)
- Crown is appealing the decision which recognized Steve and Charles Powley's Métis Aboriginal right to hunt out of season based on section 35(1) of the Constitution.
-
- R. v. Powley, [2003] 4 C.N.L.R. 321
- Crown is appealing the decision which recognized Steve and Charles Powley's Métis Aboriginal right to hunt out of season based on section 35(1) of the Constitution._x000D_ Note: The submission date of this document, submitted by the rador Nation, is estimated.
-
- R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2007] 1 C.N.L.R. 359
- This case is from New Brunswick and centres on whether the Respondents have a Treaty or Aboriginal right to harvest wood to construct homes for themselves._x000D_Note: The exact date of submission of this document in April 2006 is estimated.
-
- R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2007] 1 C.N.L.R. 359 [S.C.C.]
- \The respondents, S and P who are Maliseet and G who is Mi’kmaq, were charged under New Brunswick’s Crown Lands and Forests Act with unlawful possession of or cutting of Crown timber from Crown lands. The logs had been cut or taken from lands traditionally harvested by the respondents’ respective First Nations. Those taken by S and P were to be used for the construction of P’s house and the residue for community firewood. Those cut by G were to be used to fashion his furniture. The respondents had no intention of selling the logs or any product made from them. Their defence was that they possessed an aboriginal and treaty right to harvest timber for personal use. They were acquitted at trial. S and P’s acquittals were upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal. G’s acquittal was set aside by the Court of Queen’s Bench but restored on appeal. G did not pursue his treaty right claim before the Court of Appeal or before this Court.\" (The Supreme Court's summary.)"
-
- R. v. Sioui, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 127 (S.C.C.), aff'g [1987] 4 C.N.L.R. 118 (Que. C.A.)
- The Interveners appeal the Appellant's motion to reject historical evidence. At issue is whether the four accused are protected by a the Huron/British Treaty of 5 September 1760 in cutting down trees and making camp in a provincial forest.
-
- R. v. Sioui, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 127 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1987] 4 C.N.L.R. 118 (Que. C.A.)
- At issue is whether the four accused are protected by a the Huron/British Treaty of 5 September 1760 for cutting down trees and making camp in a provincial forest.
-
- R. v. Sioui, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 127 (S.C.C.), aff\\\\'g [1987] 4 C.N.L.R. 118 (Que. C.A.)
- The Interveners appeal the Appellant's motion to reject historical evidence. At issue is whether the four accused are protected by a the Huron/British Treaty of 5 September 1760 for cutting down trees and making camp in a provincial forest.