439:
returned with her two children to the
Reserve to live in a house bequeathed to her by her mother, Carrie Williams. Since Mrs BĂ©dard 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. BĂ©dard 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. BĂ©dard 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. BĂ©dard 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
29:
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,
443:. Mrs. BĂ©dard 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. BĂ©dard that she shall quit the Reserve. Mrs. BĂ©dard 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. BĂ©dard 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. BĂ©dard's counsel agreeing that only a declaratory relief against the Six Nations Band Council would be
438:
Yvonne BĂ©dard was born in the Six
Nations Indian Reserve in Brantford as a member of the Iroquois Nation. In May 1964, Mrs. BĂ©dard married a non-Indian, begetting two children with him. Mrs. BĂ©dard and her spouse lived together off the Reserve until June 23, 1970, when they separated. Mrs. BĂ©dard
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-Ă -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
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
1986:
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
1996:
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
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
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
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.
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
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
1928:
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.
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
1187:
1068:
2334:
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
2502:
2052:
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:
1976:
253:
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
1157:
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.
2103:
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
2285:
1921:
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.
2390:
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.
682:
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
2585:
1172:
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."
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
2636:
1914:
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
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
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
2355:
2278:
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.
1882:
Full text of the Ontario High Court decision BEDARD v. ISAAC from the Dominion Law Reports, hosted by the University of Saskatchewan
2495:
1981:
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
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
2626:
2611:
2481:
2229:
1045:
658:
2616:
2327:
2241:
1177:
613:"which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority"), it would appear, Ritchie asserted, that the
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
2606:
1805:
1162:
1897:
535:
The cases of both Mrs. Lavell and Mrs. BĂ©dard's cases were appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and were heard together.
2528:
512:. Judge Osler, however, held it of persuasive value which, in light of the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada in
2097:
962:
simply because Parliament enacted the impugned section of the law under its constitutional authority as provided by the
2621:
560:
is inoperative. In the course of making this decision, Justice Ritchie addressed numerous questions of law as follows.
273:
2631:
1130:
That was in stark contrast to non-Indian women if they married Indian men since the former would gain Indian status.
2273:
1182:
249:
by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.
242:
2261:
1966:
269:
295:
was inoperative due to an irreconcilable abridgement of her right to equality before the law, guaranteed by the
2320:
1043:
The plurality's decision in the case was very controversial and would prove influential in the drafting of the
1950:
Note: "Aboriginal law" refers to Canadian law dealing with Indigenous peoples; "Indigenous law" refers to the
2348:
2235:
2046:
1866:
2091:
2533:
2145:
867:
that take precedence over the provisions of a conflicting federal statute. Secondly, Laskin stated that
710:
Finally, Justice Ritchie held that the question of law that is applicable in the present case should be
2247:
1971:
763:, therefore, can be distinguished from this case, Ritchie argued, because the majority of the Court in
479:
Judge Osler, in his reasons for judgement, held that Section 12(1)(b) is inoperative by virtue of the
2369:
1862:
1035:
994:
Writing for himself in a dissenting opinion, Abbott indicated his agreement with Justice Laskin that
265:
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
2065:
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.
82:
982:
commands the Minister of Justice to evaluate every government bill to ensure consistency with the
2520:
2115:
2034:
1941:
1937:
1858:
328:
Grossberg affirmed and upheld the Registrar's decision, holding that the impugned Section of the
237:
226:
77:
34:
1002:
provided merely a canon of construction for the interpretation of legislation existing when the
2018:
756:
580:
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
319:
2267:
1091:
equality guarantees are sufficiently broad to include a requirement of substantive equality.
782:
731:, Ritchie contended that 'equality before the law' should be construed in the context of the
154:
303:
discriminated against Indian women since only they lost their status as an Indian under the
633:
576:
450:
After the Six Nations Band Council passed Resolution 15, Mrs. BĂ©dard immediately sought an
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
8:
1906:
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
2571:
2543:
794:
786:
444:
1881:
1876:
1871:
523:, Osler held that it is "the duty of the Court ... to declare s. 12(1)(b) of the
2509:
2152:
2121:
1801:
1167:
790:
575:, and dismissed it as a thinly veiled assault on the powers given exclusively to the
123:
63:
28:
2488:
2341:
2223:
2085:
2058:
825:
The remaining four Justices dissented, rejecting the holding of the plurality that
1891:
841:
Writing also for Justices Hall and Spence, Justice Laskin wrote a strong dissent.
2397:
2254:
1901:
284:. Mrs. Lavell disputed her loss of status to the registrar, but without success.
277:
134:
2383:
2028:
1250:
700:
629:
622:
549:
382:
245:
and BĂ©dard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the
150:
142:
138:
130:
978:
indeed affirms that its constitutional jurisdiction is not at issues when the
2600:
2547:
2460:
2431:
2418:
2404:
2040:
1991:
1951:
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
2554:
2439:
2411:
2376:
1151:
798:
748:
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.
2566:
2537:
2467:
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
736:
732:
718:
To that end, Ritchie held that the meaning of rights and freedoms in the
677:
398:, Justice Thurlow reasons, does not treat Indian women in such a manner:
158:
146:
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
2474:
2446:
2425:
2362:
2313:
2216:
928:
Laskin argued that this view is largely manifested by and contained in
910:
Laskin also rejected the argument that "discrimination embodied in the
572:
451:
426:
in the case at bar without infringing the appellant's rights under the
231:
1258:(1962), 32 D.L.R. (2d) 290, 132 C.C.C. 237, 37 C.R. 56 (B.C.C.A.). In
2208:
2203:
2109:
2198:
2193:
2188:
2183:
2178:
2173:
2168:
2163:
2158:
882:
as contingent solely on the basis that the impugned section of the
54:
The Attorney General of Canada v. Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell;
1998:
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act
1094:
2453:
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.
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
2559:
779:
546:
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
530:
368:
1936:
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
474:
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 MĂ©tis
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
2076:
661:reasoning in that case, Ritchie concluded that the
609:(which describes Parliament's intention to enact a
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
2598:
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
1987:Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867
1030:
433:
259:
1769:
1706:
1653:
1638:
1611:
1524:
1442:
1415:
1332:
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
1929:
1915:
1400:
1385:
1281:
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
1266:
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
1238:
1233:RE Lavell v. Attorney General of Canada
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
2599:
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
820:
587:To suggest that the provisions of the
475:Judgement of the Ontario Supreme Court
320:Judgement of Judge B. W. Grossberg as
2496:Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia
1910:
1827:""Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell",
1095:Aftermath of Section 12(1)(b) of the
774:
1814:
1795:
1786:
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
541:
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.
13:
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:
2648:
2328:Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada
1851:
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
1757:
1745:
1733:
1721:
1694:
1682:
1670:
1626:
1589:
1577:
1565:
1553:
1541:
1512:
1500:
1484:
1468:
1459:
1430:
1373:
1361:
1349:
1320:
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
1308:
1296:
1226:
1217:
1208:
1199:
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
7:
2146:Gradual Enfranchisement Act
1263:intoxicated off a reserve).
1144:
855:decided two things. First,
851:Justice Laskin argued that
81:Judgment for BĂ©dard in the
76:Judgment for Lavell in the
10:
2653:
1972:Royal Proclamation of 1763
1254:, S.C.R. 282, overruling
1117:inheriting family property
2622:1973 in Canadian case law
2581:
2519:
2370:R v Marshall; R v Bernard
2321:Calder v British Columbia
2298:
2135:
2016:
2007:
1959:
1948:
1120:receiving treaty benefits
1114:residing on their reserve
1031:Significance as precedent
989:
964:British North America Act
836:
757:British North America Act
619:British North America Act
434:Background to Mrs. BĂ©dard
266:Wiikwemkoong First Nation
264:Mrs. Lavell, a member of
260:Background to Mrs. Lavell
210:, R.S.C. 1970, App. III;
206:
201:
193:
185:
177:
169:
164:
119:
114:
101:
96:
88:
72:
62:
49:
45:Judgment: August 27, 1973
42:
26:
21:
2632:Minority rights case law
2521:Indigenous customary law
2066:Gradual Civilization Act
2053:Treaties of Fort Niagara
1193:
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:
2073:
2059:Douglas Treaties
2014:
2013:
1931:
1924:
1917:
1908:
1907:
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:
18:
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:
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:BĂ©dard v. Isaac
1408:
1401:
1395:BĂ©dard v. Isaac
1393:
1386:
1380:BĂ©dard v. Isaac
1378:
1374:
1368:BĂ©dard v. Isaac
1366:
1362:
1356:BĂ©dard v. Isaac
1354:
1350:
1342:
1333:
1325:
1321:
1315:BĂ©dard 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:
2640:
2639:
2634:
2629:
2624:
2619:
2614:
2609:
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
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:GĂ©rald 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:
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:
1837:on 2006-07-20
1836:
1832:
1830:
1822:
1820:
1818:
1809:
1803:
1799:
1792:
1790:
1782:
1777:
1775:
1773:
1765:
1760:
1753:
1748:
1741:
1736:
1729:
1724:
1717:
1712:
1710:
1702:
1697:
1690:
1685:
1678:
1673:
1666:
1661:
1659:
1657:
1649:
1644:
1642:
1634:
1629:
1622:
1617:
1615:
1607:
1605:
1597:
1592:
1585:
1580:
1573:
1568:
1561:
1556:
1549:
1544:
1537:
1532:
1530:
1528:
1520:
1515:
1508:
1503:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1462:
1455:
1450:
1448:
1446:
1438:
1433:
1426:
1421:
1419:
1411:
1406:
1404:
1396:
1391:
1389:
1381:
1376:
1369:
1364:
1357:
1352:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1336:
1328:
1323:
1316:
1311:
1304:
1299:
1292:
1287:
1285:
1277:
1272:
1270:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1246:
1244:
1242:
1234:
1229:
1220:
1211:
1202:
1198:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1134:
1131:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1105:
1098:
1092:
1089:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1039:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1015:
1013:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
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:
834:
832:
828:
818:
816:
811:
806:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
781:
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:
539:
536:
528:
526:
522:
517:
515:
511:
510:stare decisis
507:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
490:
486:
482:
472:
470:
464:
462:
456:
453:
448:
446:
442:
431:
429:
425:
420:
418:
408:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
378:
376:
366:
364:
360:
355:
353:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
335:
331:
323:
317:
314:
308:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
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:BĂ©dard
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.