Canada (AG) v Lavell - Knowledge (XXG)

439:

returned with her two children to the Reserve to live in a house bequeathed to her by her mother, Carrie Williams. Since Mrs Bédard had married a non-Indian, she was no longer listed in the Registry as an Indian. When she began to occupy the house on the reserve, the Six Nations Band Council passed a resolution ordering Mrs. Bédard to dispose of the property within the next six months, during which time she could live there. The Council later adopted two additional resolutions allowing Mrs. Bédard to live in the house for another six months, and then another two months, but no longer than that. In order to act in accordance with the council's resolutions, Mrs. Bédard eventually transferred ownership of the property to her brother (a registered member of the Band) who was granted a Certificate of Possession of the property on March 15, 1971, by the Minister of Indian Affairs as required by the

919:. Even if such a test had been applied, Laskin contended that it is dubious that discrimination on the basis of sex could be justified as a 'reasonable classification' when "it has no biological or physiological rationale". Moreover, Laskin did not accept the argument that a reasonable classification test can be incorporated into the right of equality before the law, since that would be precluded by "the telling words of s. 1, 'without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex." "In short," Laskin writes, 29: 443:. Mrs. Bédard and her children, with her brother's consent, remained to occupy the premises without rent. On September 15, 1971, the Six Nations Band Council passed Resolution 15, requesting the Brantford District Supervisor to serve notice to Mrs. Bédard that she shall quit the Reserve. Mrs. Bédard would later lose her status as an Indian shortly after taking the Six Nations Band Council to Court, slightly before she could deliver her 739:, Ritchie remarked that 'equality before the law' is described as an aspect of the rule of law that "carries the meaning of equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land as administered by the ordinary courts." Ritchie also extended this interpretation of 'equality before the law' to the "application of the law by law enforcement authorities." 409:, however, which is a law made by the Parliament of Canada for Indians, prescribes a different result with respect to the rights of an Indian woman who marries a person other than an Indian, or an Indian of another band, from that which is to obtain when a male Indian marries a person other than an Indian, or an Indian who is a member of another band. 354:. As a matter of fact, Judge Grossberg suggests that it is a laudable point in Canadian history that the appellant is no longer an Indian, since she now she enjoys the same rights and freedoms of all Canadians; a feat which he construes as consistent to the recommendations of the "Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada". 714:... confined to deciding whether the Parliament of Canada in defining the prerequisites of Indian Status so as not to include women of Indian birth who have chosen to marry non-Indians, enacted a law which cannot be sensibly construed and applied without abrogating, abriding or infringing the rights of such women to equality before the law. 1006:

was passed." Abbott declared that the plurality's interpretation of 'equality before the law' with respect to Dicey's writings, is therefore inappropriate. Abbott, furthermore, asserted that without giving effect to the words "without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour religion

878:, the majority opinion, made it explicitly clear that a denial of a respondent's equality before the law was apparent because a distinction had been made solely on account of the respondent's race. In light of these reasons, Laskin asserted that it would be unprincipled for the Court to now construe 690:

need not be established. Ritchie contends that Justice Laskin merely stated in his majority opinion that the rights guaranteed in paragraphs (a) to (f) (of Section 1) are guaranteed "irrespective of race, national origin, colour or sex." In other words, Section 1 rights are universal, which he argues

56:

Richard Isaac, Leonard Staats, Clarence Jamieson, Rena Hill, Norman Lickers, William White, Nina Burnham, John Capton, Howard Lickers, Clifford Lickers, Mitchell Sandy, Ronald Monture, Gordon Hill, Sydney Henhawk, Ross Powless, Victor Porter, Frank Monture, Renson Jamieson and Vincent Sandy v. Yvonne

1601:

The fundamental distinction between the present case and that of Drybones, however, appears to me to be that the impugned section in the latter case could not be enforce without denying equality of treatment in the administration and enforcement of the law before the ordinary courts of the land to a

914:

under s. 12(1)(b)" must be subject to a "reasonable classification test" (as adopted by the United States Supreme Court when dealing with similar violations under the Fifth Amendment) and that it is justified, as a reasonable classification, because the "paramount purpose of the Act to preserve and

767:

held that the impugned section "could not be enforced without bring about inequality between one group of citizens and another and that this inequality was occasioned by reason of the race of the accused." This case, Ritchie noted, does not involve the criminal law; therefore, Drybones "can ...

310:

In the case's proceedings, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada presented evidence to the court demonstrating that Mrs. Lavell had not lived on a single reserve for a period of nine years before her marriage and that she had only made a few "sporadic" visits to her family. Furthermore, counsel

1022:

has substantially affected the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. Like any other statute it can of course be repealed or amended, or a particular law declared to be applicable notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill. In form the supremacy of Parliament in maintained but in practice I think

458:

Mrs. Bédard argued that the Band Council's resolution, authorizing that a request be made to the District Supervisor to expel her from the Reserve, and any action taken in accordance with such a request by the District Supervisor, as well as the removal of her name from the Band Registry because of

454:

in court to enjoin her expulsion from the Reserve as well as an order setting aside Resolution 15, passed by the Band Council. The motion for an injunction was later withdrawn in court, with Mrs. Bédard's counsel agreeing that only a declaratory relief against the Six Nations Band Council would be

438:

Yvonne Bédard was born in the Six Nations Indian Reserve in Brantford as a member of the Iroquois Nation. In May 1964, Mrs. Bédard married a non-Indian, begetting two children with him. Mrs. Bédard and her spouse lived together off the Reserve until June 23, 1970, when they separated. Mrs. Bédard

1090:

in which Justice Ritchie held that "equality before the law" required only the equal administration of the law and did not concern the actual substance of the law or require equal laws per se; Section 15(1) was later revised to include the concept of "equality under the law" to indicate that the

315:

did not discriminate against Indian women. In defence of this proposition, counsel noted that the Supreme Court has rejected the 'similarly situated doctrine' as the appropriate measure of a party's equality before the law. The appellant, Mrs. Lavell, therefore, counsel for the Attorney General

644:

and, in particular, those provisions which constitute a "necessary structure . . . for the internal administration of the life of Indians on Reserves and their entitlement to the use and benefit of Crown lands"? It was a widely accepted convention, he argues, that an Act, in which Parliament

1262:

discrimination was ruled to have occurred between Indians and Canadians (i.e. Indians were prohibited from becoming intoxicated off a reserve, whereas Canadians were free to become intoxicated without penalty) and not between fellow Indians (e.g. the law prohibited all Indians from becoming

805:"an invalidating effect over prior legislation". Pigeon asserted that the majority of the court which once disagreed with his dissent, "now adopt it for the main body of this important statute". It, therefore, he stated, "cannot be improper for me to adhere to what was my dissenting view". 923:

the proscribed s. 1 have a force either independent of the subsequently enumerated clauses (a) to (f) or, if they are found in any federal legislation, they offend those clauses because each must be read as if the prohibited forms of discrimination were recited therein as a part thereof.

726:

was enacted, and it follows that the phrase 'equality before the law' is to be construed in light of the law existing in Canada at that time." In Ritchie's opinion, 'equality before the law' cannot be construed as "the egalitarian concept exemplified by the 14th Amendment of the U.S.

349:

Judge Grossberg also dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding the different distinctions between male and female Indians, stating that he had difficulty fathoming how such alleged inequalities within different groups of Canadian society are necessarily offensive to the

516:, he found correct as a matter of law. In particular, he agreed that since Indian women obtain a different result for marrying a non-Indian spouse, it is "plainly discrimination by reason of sex with respect to the rights of an individual to the enjoyment of property". 466:

The Band Council, the defendants in the case, argued, by contrary, that not every distinction is necessarily discriminatory. Only those distinctions which are adverse to the group with which they are being made can be categorized as discrimination as used in the

599:

has rendered Parliament powerless to exercise the authority entrusted to it under the constitution of enacting legislation which treats Indians living on Reserves differently from other Canadians in relation to their property and civil rights.

886:

created a punishable criminal offence. "The gist of the judgement", Laskin wrote, "lay in the legal disability imposed upon a person by reason of his race when other persons were under no similar restraint." Since the impugned Section of the

459:

her marriage to a non-Indian constituted discrimination on the basis of sex and race viz-à-viz her right to the "enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law", guaranteed by Section 1(a) of the

604:

Ritchie argued that Parliament cannot properly exercise the powers vested in it, if it cannot define the qualifications required to be an Indian and to "use and benefit of Crown lands reserved for Indians". Also, citing the preamble to the

742:

Applying, this interpretation of 'equality before the law', Ritchie noted that the impugned scheme has been in force and effect since 1869, that is for at least a hundred years. Furthermore, Ritchie argued that a "careful reading" of the

1110:, continued to have devastating consequences for women. Indian women who would later marry a non-Indian would lose their status as well as the children of the marriage. Furthermore, disenfranchised Indian women were prohibited from 915:

protect the members of the race is promoted by the statutory preference for Indian men". Laskin declared that U.S. case law on the subject is "at best a marginal relevance" because of the limitations imposed on the judiciary by the

342:

The appellant entered into a voluntary marriage which gave her the status and all the rights enjoyed by all other Canadian married females. Her marriage also imposed on her the same obligations imposed on all other Canadian married

1996: 906:

case found unacceptable". Justice Laskin noted that "there is no absolute disqualification of an Indian woman from registrability on the Indian Register ... by marrying outside a Band unless the marriage is to a non-Indian".

645:

exercises its constitutional functions, can only be changed or amended "by plain statutory language expressly enacted for the purpose." With respect to this case, he contended that Parliament did not intend to amend the

404:

It is clear that both male Indians and female Indians have capacity to marry and that each has the capacity and the right to contract a marriage either with another Indian or with a person who is not an Indian. The

1140:

was finally repealed in 1985 by the Parliament of Canada, after the United Nations International Human Rights Commission ruled that the removal of Indian status on account of sex was contrary to international law.

812:

need not have an invalidating effect, at all. He pointed out that there have been many cases in which a simple reinterpretation of the impugned legislation are "important illustration of the effectiveness of the

1928: 497:

it is perfectly apparent that the loss of status as an Indian and the loss of the right to be registered and to occupy property upon a reserve is discrimination which is adverse to the interest of Indian

891:

imposes disabilities and prescribes disqualifications for members of the female sex that are not imposed upon members of the male sex in the same circumstances, Laskin argued that if the reasoning in

1187: 1068: 1079:

15. (1) Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.

276:

indicating that due to her marriage to a person not registered as Indian, she would no longer be considered an Indian by law. On December 7, 1970, the Indian Registrar deleted her name from the

2334: 552:, writing for the plurality (Fauteux C.J., Martland, Judson and Ritchie JJ.), held that the enfranchisement of Indian women for marrying a non-Indian, as devised under Section 12(1)(b) of the 2502: 625:

clearly disavowed of an approach that would render an entire Act inoperative because of a violation, which held instead that only the offending provision should be construed as inoperative.

1976: 571:

inoperative because it deals solely with Indians (i.e. allegedly discrimination). Such a proposition, he argued, stands in contrast to the Court's jurisprudence and the very tenets of the

253: 1157: 471:. To that end, the defendant is given "some advantages elsewhere in the Act" with which do not apply to male Indians, and thus compensates for certain disadvantages she may experience. 771:

As such, Ritchie concluded that there is no denial of "equality before the law", since "no such inequality is necessarily entailed in the construction and application of s. 12(1)(b)".

939:

In addition, Laskin asserted that the position taken by the appellants has no historical basis and even if it did, "history cannot avail against the clear words of ss. 1 and 2 of the

287:

At Mrs. Lavell's request for judicial review of the Registrar's decision, Mrs. Lavell's case was referred to Judge B.W. Grossberg of the York County Court as per section 9(3) of the

316:

argued, must be compared not to married Indian men, but to all married Canadian women in order to establish whether or not discrimination has in fact occurred by reason of sex.

2285: 1921: 380:

Mr. Justice Thurlow, writing for a unanimous court, agreed, declaring the impugned section discriminatory on the basis of sex. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in

2390: 2585: 1172: 707:, which are to guarantee that the rights and freedoms that are 'recognized and declared.' The right to be free of discrimination, he remarks, is not one of them per se. 686:

that a provision of a statute is inoperative purely on the basis of discrimination and that a violation of one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Section 1 of the

373:

Mrs. Lavell appealed Judge Grossberg's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, arguing that Judge Grossberg erred in his determination that the impugned Section of the

649:

with the "use of broad general language directed at the statutory proclamation of the fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians . . . Citing the case of

871:

decided that the accused had been denied equality before the law on the basis that it was a criminal offence for him to do something, purely on the basis of his race.

491:, he asserts, whether the said distinction must be adverse or not to constitute discrimination, is clearly adverse toward the plaintiff to constitute discrimination: 2636: 1914: 902:

where that distinction is applicable only among Indians. On the contrary, he wrote, it is a notion "that compounds racial inequality even beyond the point that the

538:

In a 4–1–4 vote, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, setting aside the respective judgements of the Ontario Supreme Court and Federal Court of Appeal.

1872:

Full text of the Federal Court of Appeal decision RE LAVELL AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA from the Dominion Law Reports, hosted by the University of Saskatchewan

527:

inoperative", which he did, declaring all actions of the Band Council and the District Supervisor in accordance with the impugned provision to be of no effect.

307:, whereas Indian men could marry whomever they so desired without adverse legal consequence. The decision of registrar, she argued, must therefore be reversed. 1877:

Full text of the Ontario County Court decision RE LAVELL AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA from the Dominion Law Reports, hosted by the University of Saskatchewan

394:

to respect the equality of the appellants, the law must treat Indian women by the same fashion as it treats Indian men: as equals. Section 12(1)(b) of the

1082:(2) This Section does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged persons or groups. 1133:

According to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, about 4,605 Indian women lost their Indian status by marrying white men between 1958 and 1968.

1023:

that it has been substantially curtailed. In my opinion that result is undesirable, but that is a matter for consideration by Parliament not the courts.

1602:

racial group, whereas no such inequality of treatment between Indian men and women flows as a necessary result of the application of s. 12(1)(b) of the

2355: 2278: 2495: 1981: 1007:

or sex" as used in section 1, the plurality has effectively deprived them of any significance as though they are "mere rhetorical window dressing."

2626: 2611: 2481: 2229: 1045: 658: 556:, did not constitute a denial of the respondent's right to equality before the law. Hence, Ritchie did not find that the impugned Section of the 2616: 2327: 2241: 1177: 863:

was "more than a mere interpretation statute whose terms would yield to a contrary intention." Rather, he stated, it is the provisions of the

2606: 1805: 1162: 386:, Justice Thurlow rejected the reasoning of Judge Grossberg that since all women, Canadian and Indian, were being treated the same under the 998:

cannot be distinguished from the two cases under appeal. "In that case," Abbott wrote, "this Court rejected the contention that s. 1 of the

951:

does not permit a violation of its provisions regardless of whether the impugned statute was enacted prior to or after the enactment of the

2528: 415:

Justice Thurlow also noted that should a male Indian marry a non-Indian, not only will his legal status as an Indian remain unchanged, the

2097: 2621: 273: 1886: 1826: 895:

was actually applied to the appeals the Court would have no choice but to find a denial of the respondents' equality before the law.

2631: 1882:

Full text of the Ontario High Court decision BEDARD v. ISAAC from the Dominion Law Reports, hosted by the University of Saskatchewan

970:

case", Laskin noted, "dispels any attempt to rely on the grant of legislative power as a ground for escaping from the force of the

390:

that there was no deprivation of the appellant's equality before the law. Rather, Justice Thurlow determines that in order for the

1986: 755:

a Reserve", whereas Section 12(1)(b) is legislation "enacted as a part of the plan devised by Parliament, under s. 91(24) [of the

2273: 1182: 242: 2261: 1966: 613:"which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority"), it would appear, Ritchie asserted, that the 269: 106:

does not violate the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law, as guaranteed under Section 1 (b) of the

2320: 1897: 535:

The cases of both Mrs. Lavell and Mrs. Bédard's cases were appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and were heard together.

512:. Judge Osler, however, held it of persuasive value which, in light of the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2348: 2235: 2046: 2091: 962:

simply because Parliament enacted the impugned section of the law under its constitutional authority as provided by the

2533: 560:

is inoperative. In the course of making this decision, Justice Ritchie addressed numerous questions of law as follows.

2145: 1130:

That was in stark contrast to non-Indian women if they married Indian men since the former would gain Indian status.

2247: 1971: 249:

by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.

2369: 265: 295:

was inoperative due to an irreconcilable abridgement of her right to equality before the law, guaranteed by the

2065: 1043:

The plurality's decision in the case was very controversial and would prove influential in the drafting of the

82: 2052: 1950:

Note: "Aboriginal law" refers to Canadian law dealing with Indigenous peoples; "Indigenous law" refers to the

1866: 2520: 2115: 2034: 1941: 1937: 1858: 237: 226: 77: 34: 2103: 2018: 756: 580: 867:

that take precedence over the provisions of a conflicting federal statute. Secondly, Laskin stated that

782: 710:

Finally, Justice Ritchie held that the question of law that is applicable in the present case should be

154: 2267: 763:, therefore, can be distinguished from this case, Ritchie argued, because the majority of the Court in 682: 479:

Judge Osler, in his reasons for judgement, held that Section 12(1)(b) is inoperative by virtue of the

28: 1862: 994:

Writing for himself in a dissenting opinion, Abbott indicated his agreement with Justice Laskin that

633: 576: 898:

Furthermore, Laskin rejected the notion that a distinction on the basis of sex does not violate the

487:

can be "compensated" for by other provisions which favour Indian women. The distinction made by the

1027:

Finally, Justice Abbott held that he would have dismissed the appeal in favour of the respondents.

958:

Finally, Laskin discarded the argument that the discrimination in question is not offensive to the

463:. Therefore, she asserted, it follows that the Band Council's actions are without force or effect. 982:

commands the Minister of Justice to evaluate every government bill to ensure consistency with the

2571: 2543: 794: 786: 444: 328:

Grossberg affirmed and upheld the Registrar's decision, holding that the impugned Section of the

1002:

provided merely a canon of construction for the interpretation of legislation existing when the

483:. The judge rejected the reasoning of the defendant that such "disadvantages" produced by the 332:

did not discriminate against the appellant on the basis of sex. Judge Grossberg noted that the

235:

did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the

2509: 2152: 2121: 1801: 1167: 790: 123: 1091:

equality guarantees are sufficiently broad to include a requirement of substantive equality.

731:, Ritchie contended that 'equality before the law' should be construed in the context of the 2488: 2341: 2223: 2085: 2058: 303:

discriminated against Indian women since only they lost their status as an Indian under the

450:

After the Six Nations Band Council passed Resolution 15, Mrs. Bédard immediately sought an

2397: 2254: 1901: 1834: 833:

cannot render a law inoperative by virtue of a violation of one of its enumerated rights.

640:

to fundamentally change or alter any constitutional scheme such as those contained in the

277: 134: 1906: 1035: 669:. For good measure, Ritchie also noted that Justice Pigeon came to similar conclusion in 252:

The Supreme Court's decision proved very controversial, later influencing the wording of

676:

Thirdly, Justice Ritchie also disagreed with the respondent's interpretation of Justice

2383: 2028: 1250: 700: 629: 622: 549: 382: 150: 142: 138: 130: 1881: 1876: 1871: 523:, Osler held that it is "the duty of the Court ... to declare s. 12(1)(b) of the 2600: 2547: 2460: 2431: 2418: 2404: 2040: 1991: 1951: 575:, and dismissed it as a thinly veiled assault on the powers given exclusively to the 63: 2554: 2439: 2411: 2376: 1151: 825:

The remaining four Justices dissented, rejecting the holding of the plurality that

798: 748: 2537: 1891: 841:

Writing also for Justices Hall and Spence, Justice Laskin wrote a strong dissent.

284:. Mrs. Lavell disputed her loss of status to the registrar, but without success. 2566: 2467: 736: 732: 677: 158: 146: 245:

and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the

2474: 2446: 2425: 2362: 2313: 2216: 978:

indeed affirms that its constitutional jurisdiction is not at issues when the

572: 451: 231: 2208: 2203: 2109: 1053:. Indeed, the Supreme Court's narrow and restrained interpretations of the 272:

in Toronto, on April 11, 1970. She was promptly delivered a notice from the

1010:

Also, Justice Abbott took the opportunity to comment on the effect of the

801:, Pigeon chided the majority on the Court who would persist in giving the 759:

for the regulation of the internal domestic life of Indians on Reserves."

751:

was criminal legislation "exclusively concerned with behaviour of Indians

722:

is exactly the same meaning "which it bore in Canada at the time when the

377:

was not in violation of the appellant's right to equality before the law.

2198: 2193: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2173: 2168: 2163: 2158: 1061:

certainly reinforced the push for an entrenched bill of rights, like the

829:

must be distinguished from the case at bar and Pigeon's opinion that the

718:

To that end, Ritchie held that the meaning of rights and freedoms in the

398:, Justice Thurlow reasons, does not treat Indian women in such a manner: 68:(1973), 38 D.L.R. (3d) 481, 23 C.R.N.S. 197, 11 R.F.L. 333, S.C.R. 1349. 1598:(1974) at 1371–173. Ritchie expounded upon this stating on p. 1371 that 1123:

participating in band councils and other affairs of the Indian community

947:

does not contain purely declaratory provisions. Rather, Laskin held the

943:". Those sections, Laskin contended, makes it abundantly clear that the 2453: 928:

Laskin argued that this view is largely manifested by and contained in

910:

Laskin also rejected the argument that "discrimination embodied in the

426:

in the case at bar without infringing the appellant's rights under the

1258:(1962), 32 D.L.R. (2d) 290, 132 C.C.C. 237, 37 C.R. 56 (B.C.C.A.). In 882:

as contingent solely on the basis that the impugned section of the

54:

The Attorney General of Canada v. Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell;

2559: 1998:

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

779: 546: 519:

Therefore, pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in

419:

also provides that his wife may also be registered as an Indian.

1910: 430:, Justice Thurlow declared the impugned provision inoperative. 173:

Ritchie J., joined by Fauteux C.J., and Martland and Judson JJ.

1188:

Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

361:, the Judge concludes, is not inoperative in the face of the 727:

Constitution ... " Instead, citing the preamble of the

1887:

File on Mrs. Lavell from the Library and Archives of Canada

844:"It is", Justice Laskin wrote, "impossible to distinguish 691:

is supported by the locution of the French version of the

504:

With respect to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in

1977:

Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

567:

did not have the effect of rendering the entirety of the

254:

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

422:

Being of the opinion that the Court could not apply the

874:

Laskin contended that Justice Ritchie's own opinion in

1158:

The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis

1106:, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 695:. Furthermore, Ritchie held that the notion that the 621:". Moreover, Ritchie also noted that the majority in 617:

does not purport to "amend or alter the terms of the

274:

Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

595:

inoperative as discriminatory is to assert that the

2519: 2298: 2135: 2076: 2016: 2007: 1959: 661:reasoning in that case, Ritchie concluded that the 609:(which describes Parliament's intention to enact a 201: 193: 185: 177: 169: 164: 114: 96: 88: 72: 62: 49: 42: 21: 1317:(1971), 25 D.L.R. (3d) 551 (Ont. S.C.) at 552–553. 336:treated all married women equally, Indian or not: 291:. Mrs. Lavell argued that Section 12(1)(b) of the 2586:Index of articles related to Indigenous Canadians 1173:Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 508:, he holds that it is not binding as a matter of 311:argued that as far as the law was concerned, the 703:alone does not comport with the purposes of the 268:, married David Lavell, a journalism student at 2286:Ongoing treaty negotiations in British Columbia 1800:(Student ed.). Scarborough, ON: Carswell. 1214:Mrs. Lavell was born Jeannette Vivian Corbiere. 1126:being buried in cemeteries with their ancestors 299:. In particular, Mrs. Lavell asserted that the 1776: 1774: 1772: 1711: 1709: 1660: 1658: 1656: 1643: 1641: 1616: 1614: 1531: 1529: 1527: 1449: 1447: 1445: 1420: 1418: 1339: 1337: 1335: 229:decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the 1922: 1405: 1403: 1390: 1388: 1286: 1284: 768:have no application to the present appeals". 747:reveals that the section held inoperative in 8: 1987:Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 1271: 1269: 1036:Lavell's influence over the wording of the 848:, which he has "no disposition to reject." 280:in accordance with Section 12(1)(b) of the 2073: 2013: 1929: 1915: 1907: 1245: 1243: 1241: 1071:of the October 1980 draft version of the 974:." Laskin remarked that Section 3 of the 665:, likewise, did not and cannot amend the 1982:Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 1303:RE Lavell and Attorney General of Canada 1291:RE Lavell and Attorney General of Canada 1086:In light of the plurality's decision of 531:Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada 506:Re Lavell and Attorney General of Canada 369:Judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal 197:Laskin J., joined by Hall and Spence JJ. 2482:St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R 2230:James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement 1821: 1819: 1817: 1791: 1789: 1276:RE Lavell v. Attorney General of Canada 1233:RE Lavell v. Attorney General of Canada 1198: 1073:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1063:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1046:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1038:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 43:Hearing: February 22, 23, 26, 27, 1973 2637:Canadian federal government litigation 2356:Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada 1178:Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada) 1102:The impact of Section 12(1)(b) of the 587:To suggest that the provisions of the 475:Judgement of the Ontario Supreme Court 320:Judgement of Judge B. W. Grossberg as 18: 2496:Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia 1827:""Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell", 1095:Aftermath of Section 12(1)(b) of the 7: 1781:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1764:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1752:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1665:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1633:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1621:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1596:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1584:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1572:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1560:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1548:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1536:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1519:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1507:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1475:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1454:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1437:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1425:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1344:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 1327:Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell 591:have the effect of making the whole 357:To that end Section 12(1)(b) of the 2307:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1740:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1728:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1716:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1701:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1689:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1677:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 1648:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell 225:, S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 110:, and is therefore not inoperative. 1477:(1974) at 1361–1362, referring to 1293:(1971), 22 D.L.R. (3d) 188 at 191. 1235:(1972), 22 D.L.R. (3d) 182 at 187. 817:without any invalidating effect". 14: 2328:Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada 16:1974 Supreme Court of Canada case 1954:of individual Indigenous groups. 1183:List of gender equality lawsuits 789:, agreed with the result of the 27: 2262:Duty to consult and accommodate 2098:Lake Simcoe–Lake Huron Purchase 1967:Aboriginal land title in Canada 966:. "The majority opinion in the 735:. Drawing from the writings of 657:with approval and applying the 563:Firstly, Ritchie held that the 270:Ryerson Polytechnical Institute 2627:Gender discrimination lawsuits 2612:Canadian civil rights case law 1: 2617:Supreme Court of Canada cases 2349:Delgamuukw v British Columbia 2236:Nunavut Land Claims Agreement 2047:Peace and Friendship Treaties 256:during the drafting process. 2607:Canadian Aboriginal case law 2092:Penetanguishene Bay Purchase 1798:Constitutional law of Canada 1163:Canadian Aboriginal case law 2146:Gradual Enfranchisement Act 1263:intoxicated off a reserve). 855:decided two things. First, 851:Justice Laskin argued that 81:Judgment for Bédard in the 76:Judgment for Lavell in the 2653: 1972:Royal Proclamation of 1763 1254:, S.C.R. 282, overruling 1117:inheriting family property 2622:1973 in Canadian case law 2581: 2370:R v Marshall; R v Bernard 2321:Calder v British Columbia 1948: 1120:receiving treaty benefits 1114:residing on their reserve 1031:Significance as precedent 964:British North America Act 757:British North America Act 619:British North America Act 434:Background to Mrs. Bédard 266:Wiikwemkoong First Nation 264:Mrs. Lavell, a member of 260:Background to Mrs. Lavell 210:, R.S.C. 1970, App. III; 206: 119: 101: 45:Judgment: August 27, 1973 26: 2632:Minority rights case law 2521:Indigenous customary law 2066:Gradual Civilization Act 2053:Treaties of Fort Niagara 1136:Section 12(1)(b) of the 102:Section 12(1)(b) of the 83:Supreme Court of Ontario 2391:Paul v British Columbia 2248:Nisga'a Final Agreement 2116:Saugeen Tract Agreement 2035:Great Peace of Montreal 1893:Canadian Bill of Rights 1859:Supreme Court of Canada 1796:Hogg, Peter W. (2004). 1055:Canadian Bill of Rights 1051:Canadian Bill of Rights 1049:, the successor of the 1020:Canadian Bill of Rights 1000:Canadian Bill of Rights 972:Canadian Bill of Rights 945:Canadian Bill of Rights 941:Canadian Bill of Rights 917:Canadian Bill of Rights 900:Canadian Bill of Rights 865:Canadian Bill of Rights 861:Canadian Bill of Rights 831:Canadian Bill of Rights 810:Canadian Bill of Rights 808:Pigeon argued that the 688:Canadian Bill of Rights 663:Canadian Bill of Rights 638:Canadian Bill of Rights 607:Canadian Bill of Rights 565:Canadian Bill of Rights 481:Canadian Bill of Rights 469:Canadian Bill of Rights 461:Canadian Bill of Rights 428:Canadian Bill of Rights 363:Canadian Bill of Rights 352:Canadian Bill of Rights 297:Canadian Bill of Rights 247:Canadian Bill of Rights 241:. The two respondents, 238:Canadian Bill of Rights 227:Supreme Court of Canada 208:Canadian BilI of Rights 108:Canadian Bill of Rights 78:Federal Court of Appeal 35:Supreme Court of Canada 2010:governmental relations 1829:Toronto Star Syndicate 1608: 1084: 1025: 926: 793:. However, citing his 716: 602: 214:, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6. 1599: 1479:The Queen v. Drybones 1251:The Queen v. Drybones 1077: 1016: 921: 712: 585: 447:against the council. 155:Louis-Philippe Pigeon 2104:Huron Tract Purchase 1730:(1974) at 1387–1388. 1703:(1974) at 1386–1387. 1562:(1974) at 1368–1369. 1521:(1974) at 1363–1364. 1223:S.C.R. 1349 at 1376. 1205:R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6. 1014:, stating famously: 222:Canada (AG) v Lavell 22:Canada (AG) v Lavell 1938:Canadian Aboriginal 821:Dissenting opinions 636:did not intend the 324:(York County Court) 2544:Great Law of Peace 2268:Jordan's Principle 2136:Post-Confederation 2124:(1850, 1854, 1859) 1900:2006-09-13 at the 1358:(1971) at 553–554. 787:concurring opinion 775:Concurring opinion 577:Federal Parliament 445:statement of claim 2594: 2593: 2510:Restoule v Canada 2335:Corbiere v Canada 2294: 2293: 2153:Numbered Treaties 2131: 2130: 2122:Robinson Treaties 1807:978-0-459-24131-5 1168:Numbered Treaties 859:decided that the 542:Plurality opinion 322:persona designata 218: 217: 2644: 2503:Daniels v Canada 2489:R v Van der Peet 2342:Daniels v Canada 2086:Toronto Purchase 2074: 2059:Douglas Treaties 2014: 1931: 1924: 1917: 1908: 1846: 1845: 1843: 1842: 1833:. Archived from 1823: 1812: 1811: 1793: 1784: 1778: 1767: 1761: 1755: 1749: 1743: 1737: 1731: 1725: 1719: 1713: 1704: 1698: 1692: 1686: 1680: 1674: 1668: 1662: 1651: 1645: 1636: 1630: 1624: 1618: 1609: 1593: 1587: 1581: 1575: 1569: 1563: 1557: 1551: 1545: 1539: 1533: 1522: 1516: 1510: 1504: 1498: 1488: 1482: 1472: 1466: 1463: 1457: 1451: 1440: 1434: 1428: 1422: 1413: 1412:, (1971) at 557. 1407: 1398: 1397:, (1971) at 556. 1392: 1383: 1377: 1371: 1365: 1359: 1353: 1347: 1341: 1330: 1324: 1318: 1312: 1306: 1300: 1294: 1288: 1279: 1273: 1264: 1247: 1236: 1230: 1224: 1221: 1215: 1212: 1206: 1203: 343:females ... 128:Puisne Justices: 115:Court membership 92:Appeals allowed. 31: 19: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2590: 2577: 2529:Self-government 2515: 2398:Paulette Caveat 2290: 2279:specific claims 2270:(proposed 2005) 2255:Paix des Braves 2137: 2127: 2078: 2072: 2021: 2009: 2003: 1955: 1944: 1935: 1902:Wayback Machine 1854: 1849: 1840: 1838: 1825: 1824: 1815: 1808: 1795: 1794: 1787: 1783:(1974) at 1374. 1779: 1770: 1766:(1974) at 1373. 1762: 1758: 1754:(1974) at 1389. 1750: 1746: 1742:(1974) at 1388. 1738: 1734: 1726: 1722: 1718:(1974) at 1387. 1714: 1707: 1699: 1695: 1691:(1974) at 1386. 1687: 1683: 1679:(1974) at 1384. 1675: 1671: 1667:(1974) at 1383. 1663: 1654: 1650:(1974) at 1382. 1646: 1639: 1635:(1974) at 1375. 1631: 1627: 1623:(1974) at 1390. 1619: 1612: 1594: 1590: 1586:(1974) at 1371. 1582: 1578: 1574:(1974) at 1370. 1570: 1566: 1558: 1554: 1550:(1974) at 1366. 1546: 1542: 1538:(1974) at 1365. 1534: 1525: 1517: 1513: 1509:(1974) at 1363. 1505: 1501: 1489: 1485: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1460: 1456:(1974) at 1360. 1452: 1443: 1439:(1974) at 1358. 1435: 1431: 1427:(1974) at 1359. 1423: 1416: 1410:Bédard v. Isaac 1408: 1401: 1395:Bédard v. Isaac 1393: 1386: 1380:Bédard v. Isaac 1378: 1374: 1368:Bédard v. Isaac 1366: 1362: 1356:Bédard v. Isaac 1354: 1350: 1342: 1333: 1325: 1321: 1315:Bédard v. Isaac 1313: 1309: 1301: 1297: 1289: 1282: 1274: 1267: 1248: 1239: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1147: 1100: 1041: 1033: 1018:In my view the 992: 839: 823: 777: 659:Privy Council's 632:also held that 544: 533: 477: 436: 371: 326: 262: 135:Ronald Martland 126: 80: 55: 44: 38: 17: 12: 11: 5: 2650: 2648: 2640: 2639: 2634: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2614: 2609: 2599: 2598: 2592: 2591: 2589: 2588: 2582: 2579: 2578: 2576: 2575: 2563: 2551: 2541: 2531: 2525: 2523: 2517: 2516: 2514: 2513: 2506: 2499: 2492: 2485: 2478: 2471: 2464: 2457: 2450: 2443: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2422: 2415: 2408: 2401: 2394: 2387: 2384:Mitchell v MNR 2380: 2373: 2366: 2359: 2352: 2345: 2338: 2331: 2324: 2317: 2310: 2302: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2291: 2289: 2288: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2271: 2265: 2259: 2251: 2245: 2239: 2233: 2227: 2221: 2220:(1876–present) 2213: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2201: 2196: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2176: 2171: 2166: 2161: 2150: 2141: 2139: 2133: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2126: 2125: 2119: 2113: 2107: 2101: 2095: 2089: 2082: 2080: 2071: 2070: 2062: 2056: 2050: 2044: 2038: 2032: 2029:Covenant Chain 2025: 2023: 2011: 2005: 2004: 2002: 2001: 1994: 1989: 1984: 1979: 1974: 1969: 1963: 1961: 1960:Sources of law 1957: 1956: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1942:Indigenous law 1936: 1934: 1933: 1926: 1919: 1911: 1905: 1904: 1889: 1884: 1879: 1874: 1869: 1853: 1852:External links 1850: 1848: 1847: 1813: 1806: 1785: 1768: 1756: 1744: 1732: 1720: 1705: 1693: 1681: 1669: 1652: 1637: 1625: 1610: 1588: 1576: 1564: 1552: 1540: 1523: 1511: 1499: 1497:, S.C.R. 889. 1483: 1481:(1970) at 304. 1467: 1458: 1441: 1429: 1414: 1399: 1384: 1382:(1971) at 554. 1372: 1370:(1971) at 552. 1360: 1348: 1346:(1974) at 1377 1331: 1329:(1974) at 1355 1319: 1307: 1305:(1971) at 190. 1295: 1280: 1265: 1256:R. v. Gonzales 1237: 1225: 1216: 1207: 1197: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1185: 1180: 1175: 1170: 1165: 1160: 1155: 1146: 1143: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1099: 1093: 1057:in cases like 1040: 1034: 1032: 1029: 1012:Bill of Rights 991: 988: 984:Bill of Rights 980:Bill of Rights 976:Bill of Rights 960:Bill of Rights 953:Bill of Rights 838: 835: 822: 819: 803:Bill of Rights 776: 773: 729:Bill of Rights 720:Bill of Rights 705:Bill of Rights 701:discrimination 697:Bill of Rights 693:Bill of Rights 611:Bill of Rights 589:Bill of Rights 543: 540: 532: 529: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498:women ... 476: 473: 435: 432: 413: 412: 411: 410: 370: 367: 347: 346: 345: 344: 325: 318: 261: 258: 216: 215: 204: 203: 199: 198: 195: 191: 190: 187: 183: 182: 179: 175: 174: 171: 167: 166: 162: 161: 151:Wishart Spence 143:Roland Ritchie 139:Wilfred Judson 131:Douglas Abbott 124:Gérald Fauteux 121:Chief Justice: 117: 116: 112: 111: 99: 98: 94: 93: 90: 86: 85: 74: 70: 69: 66: 60: 59: 51: 50:Full case name 47: 46: 40: 39: 32: 24: 23: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2649: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2620: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2610: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2602: 2587: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2549: 2548:Haudenosaunee 2545: 2542: 2539: 2535: 2534:Grand Council 2532: 2530: 2527: 2526: 2524: 2522: 2518: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2505: 2504: 2500: 2498: 2497: 2493: 2491: 2490: 2486: 2484: 2483: 2479: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2470: 2469: 2465: 2463: 2462: 2461:R v Pamajewon 2458: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2442: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2432:Gladue report 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2421: 2420: 2419:R v Gladstone 2416: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2407: 2406: 2405:Powley ruling 2402: 2400: 2399: 2395: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2386: 2385: 2381: 2379: 2378: 2374: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2344: 2343: 2339: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2323: 2322: 2318: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2301: 2297: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2228: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2197: 2195: 2192: 2190: 2187: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2157: 2156: 2154: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2142: 2140: 2134: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2081: 2075: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2060: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2041:Nanfan Treaty 2039: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2024: 2020: 2019:Confederation 2015: 2012: 2008:Treaties and 2006: 2000: 1999: 1995: 1993: 1992:Treaty rights 1990: 1988: 1985: 1983: 1980: 1978: 1975: 1973: 1970: 1968: 1965: 1964: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1952:customary law 1947: 1943: 1939: 1932: 1927: 1925: 1920: 1918: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1903: 1899: 1896: 1894: 1890: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1857:Full text of 1856: 1855: 1851: 1837:on 2006-07-20 1836: 1832: 1830: 1822: 1820: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1803: 1799: 1792: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1775: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1760: 1757: 1753: 1748: 1745: 1741: 1736: 1733: 1729: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1697: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1659: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1605: 1597: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1530: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1471: 1468: 1462: 1459: 1455: 1450: 1448: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1430: 1426: 1421: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1338: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1287: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1246: 1244: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1226: 1220: 1217: 1211: 1208: 1202: 1199: 1193: 1189: 1186: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1166: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1156: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1142: 1139: 1134: 1131: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1109: 1105: 1098: 1094: 1092: 1089: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1039: 1030: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1015: 1013: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 989: 987: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 956: 954: 950: 946: 942: 937: 935: 931: 925: 920: 918: 913: 908: 905: 901: 896: 894: 890: 885: 881: 877: 872: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 849: 847: 842: 836: 834: 832: 828: 820: 818: 816: 811: 806: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 781: 774: 772: 769: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 740: 738: 734: 730: 725: 721: 715: 711: 708: 706: 702: 698: 694: 689: 685: 684: 679: 674: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 643: 639: 635: 631: 626: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 601: 598: 594: 590: 584: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 561: 559: 555: 551: 548: 541: 539: 536: 530: 528: 526: 522: 517: 515: 511: 510:stare decisis 507: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 490: 486: 482: 474: 472: 470: 464: 462: 456: 453: 448: 446: 442: 433: 431: 429: 425: 420: 418: 408: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 397: 393: 389: 385: 384: 378: 376: 368: 366: 364: 360: 355: 353: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 335: 331: 323: 319: 317: 314: 308: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 285: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 259: 257: 255: 250: 248: 244: 240: 239: 234: 233: 228: 224: 223: 213: 209: 205: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165:Reasons given 163: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 129: 125: 122: 118: 113: 109: 105: 100: 95: 91: 87: 84: 79: 75: 73:Prior history 71: 67: 65: 61: 58: 52: 48: 41: 37: 36: 30: 25: 20: 2565: 2555:Pittailiniit 2553: 2508: 2501: 2494: 2487: 2480: 2473: 2466: 2459: 2452: 2445: 2440:R v Gonzales 2438: 2424: 2417: 2412:R v Drybones 2410: 2403: 2396: 2389: 2382: 2377:R v Marshall 2375: 2368: 2361: 2354: 2347: 2340: 2333: 2326: 2319: 2312: 2306: 2305: 2264:(since 2004) 2253: 2215: 2155:(1871–1921) 2144: 2077:Upper Canada 2064: 1997: 1892: 1861:decision at 1839:. Retrieved 1835:the original 1828: 1797: 1780: 1763: 1759: 1751: 1747: 1739: 1735: 1727: 1723: 1715: 1700: 1696: 1688: 1684: 1676: 1672: 1664: 1647: 1632: 1628: 1620: 1603: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1583: 1579: 1571: 1567: 1559: 1555: 1547: 1543: 1535: 1518: 1514: 1506: 1502: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1461: 1453: 1436: 1432: 1424: 1409: 1394: 1379: 1375: 1367: 1363: 1355: 1351: 1343: 1326: 1322: 1314: 1310: 1302: 1298: 1290: 1275: 1259: 1255: 1249: 1232: 1228: 1219: 1210: 1201: 1152:R v Drybones 1150: 1137: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1107: 1103: 1101: 1096: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1075:guaranteed: 1072: 1067: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1044: 1042: 1037: 1026: 1019: 1017: 1011: 1009: 1003: 999: 995: 993: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 957: 952: 948: 944: 940: 938: 933: 929: 927: 922: 916: 911: 909: 903: 899: 897: 892: 888: 883: 879: 875: 873: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 850: 845: 843: 840: 830: 827:R v Drybones 826: 824: 814: 809: 807: 802: 778: 770: 764: 760: 752: 744: 741: 728: 723: 719: 717: 713: 709: 704: 696: 692: 687: 681: 675: 670: 666: 662: 654: 650: 646: 641: 637: 627: 618: 614: 610: 606: 603: 596: 592: 588: 586: 581:Constitution 568: 564: 562: 557: 553: 545: 537: 534: 524: 520: 518: 513: 509: 505: 503: 488: 484: 480: 478: 468: 465: 460: 457: 449: 440: 437: 427: 423: 421: 416: 414: 406: 395: 391: 387: 381: 379: 374: 372: 362: 358: 356: 351: 348: 333: 329: 327: 321: 312: 309: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 286: 281: 263: 251: 246: 236: 230: 221: 220: 219: 211: 207: 202:Laws applied 127: 120: 107: 103: 53: 33: 2572:Plains Cree 2567:Wahkohtowin 2468:R v Sparrow 2274:Land claims 2224:White Paper 2149:(1869–1876) 2138:(post-1867) 2069:(1857–1869) 2055:(1764–1784) 2049:(1725–1779) 1895:(full text) 733:rule of law 680:opinion in 178:Concurrence 159:Bora Laskin 147:Emmett Hall 2601:Categories 2475:Re Eskimos 2447:R v Guerin 2426:R v Gladue 2363:Kruger v R 2314:R v Badger 2217:Indian Act 2022:(pre-1867) 1865: and 1841:2006-07-25 1604:Indian Act 1138:Indian Act 1104:Indian Act 1097:Indian Act 1069:Section 15 912:Indian Act 889:Indian Act 884:Indian Act 745:Indian Act 699:prohibits 667:Indian Act 647:Indian Act 642:Indian Act 634:Parliament 628:Secondly, 593:Indian Act 573:common law 569:Indian Act 558:Indian Act 554:Indian Act 525:Indian Act 489:Indian Act 485:Indian Act 452:injunction 441:Indian Act 424:Indian Act 417:Indian Act 407:Indian Act 396:Indian Act 392:Indian Act 375:Indian Act 359:Indian Act 334:Indian Act 330:Indian Act 313:Indian Act 301:Indian Act 293:Indian Act 289:Indian Act 282:Indian Act 232:Indian Act 212:Indian Act 104:Indian Act 2110:Treaty 45 2061:(1850–54) 1495:The Queen 1465:A.C. 748. 1278:, at 186. 791:plurality 189:Abbott J. 181:Pigeon J. 170:Plurality 64:Citations 2299:Case law 2079:treaties 1898:Archived 1260:Drybones 1145:See also 996:Drybones 968:Drybones 930:Drybones 904:Drybones 893:Drybones 880:Drybones 876:Drybones 869:Drybones 857:Drybones 853:Drybones 846:Drybones 799:Drybones 765:Drybones 761:Drybones 749:Drybones 678:Laskin's 671:Drybones 623:Drybones 521:Drybones 514:Drybones 455:sought. 383:Drybones 278:Registry 2538:Miꞌkmaq 2454:R v Jim 2031:(1670s) 795:dissent 785:, in a 780:Justice 630:Ritchie 579:by the 550:Ritchie 547:Justice 194:Dissent 186:Dissent 97:Holding 2258:(2002) 2250:(1998) 2244:(1995) 2238:(1993) 2232:(1975) 2226:(1969) 2118:(1836) 2112:(1836) 2106:(1827) 2100:(1815) 2094:(1798) 2088:(1787) 2043:(1701) 2037:(1701) 1867:CanLII 1804: 1108:Lavell 1088:Lavell 1059:Lavell 990:Abbott 837:Laskin 783:Pigeon 651:Barker 243:Lavell 89:Ruling 57:Bédard 2560:Inuit 1863:LexUM 1194:Notes 737:Dicey 655:Edger 2242:RCAP 2017:Pre- 1940:and 1802:ISBN 1491:Curr 1004:Bill 949:Bill 934:Curr 932:and 815:Bill 724:Bill 683:Curr 615:Bill 597:Bill 1493:v. 797:in 753:off 653:v. 388:Act 305:Act 2603:: 2209:11 2204:10 1816:^ 1788:^ 1771:^ 1708:^ 1655:^ 1640:^ 1613:^ 1606:. 1526:^ 1444:^ 1417:^ 1402:^ 1387:^ 1334:^ 1283:^ 1268:^ 1240:^ 1065:. 986:. 955:. 936:. 673:. 583:: 365:. 157:, 153:, 149:, 145:, 141:, 137:, 133:, 2574:) 2570:( 2562:) 2558:( 2550:) 2546:( 2540:) 2536:( 2199:9 2194:8 2189:7 2184:6 2179:5 2174:4 2169:3 2164:2 2159:1 1930:e 1923:t 1916:v 1844:. 1831:" 1810:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.