1. From Aboriginal Rights to Modern
Treaty Rights in British Columbia
George Nicholson, LLB.

2. Goal of this Presentation
• Why do Aboriginal people have special rights
under the Constitution?
• What is the content of Aboriginal rights and
Aboriginal title?
• What becomes of Aboriginal rights after a
modern Treaty?

3. Part One
Real Property Law Primer for
Aboriginal Rights
“Property and Law were born and die
together.”
– Jeremy Bentham, English Philosopher
“This we know - the Earth does not belong to
man - man belongs to the Earth.”
- Chief Seattle

4. Examples of Land Interests
• Crown, Radical or Ultimate Title: expressions sometimes
used to refer to the rights and jurisdiction of a sovereign or
crown that sits atop all other interests
• Fee Simple: the most common form of individual land
ownership in Canada. Example - most people who own their
own home
• Life Estates: an interest where a person will be granted
property for as long as they live. Example – a will that leaves
property to a widow for life and then to children
• Easements: lesser interests for a specific purpose that do not
give rise to ownership but are rights an owner must honour
(servitude or a burden). Example – a hydro right of way
• Covenants: A condition that an interest holder promises to
abide by, often as a condition of sale. Example – a buyer of a
condominium in a senior’s housing complex promises only to
subsequently grant their property to another senior

5. Acquiring an Interest in Land
Ways you can acquire an interest in land include:
• Purchase
• Transfer from an estate, with or without a will
• Gift
• Grants from the Crown
• Through continual use, such as:
▫ Adverse Possession (Squatter Rights)
▫ Prescription (similar but for easements)
▫ One way includes proving use since “time
immemorial,” which for the Courts is 1189

6. Continual Use Interest in Land
Lot A is owned by Albert. Albert sells
his land to Bertha. When Bertha buys
the land, she sees that, for whatever
reason, the Certificate of Title and
survey do not show a right of way for
the road. She begins to deny the use
of the road to the owners of Lots B, C,
and D. The owners of B, C, and D
prove to the courts that they and
others have been using this as a road
for over twenty years. The courts
rule, based on the doctrine of
Prescription, that when Bertha bought
Lot A from Albert, the right of way
was a pre-existing burden on Bertha’s
land.

7. Part Two
Aboriginal Rights in the Common Law
“ The doctrine of Aboriginal rights exists… because
of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in
North America, Aboriginal peoples were already
here, living in communities on the land, and
participating in distinctive cultures, as they had
done for centuries. It is this fact, and this fact
above all others, which separates Aboriginal
peoples from all other minority groups in Canadian
society and which mandates their special legal
status.”
– Chief Justice Lamer in R. v. Van der Peet, para
30.

8. Historical Treaties and Early Policy
• Canada signed treaties numbered 1 to 11 with First Nations between
1871 and 1921 across all of Canada except the majority of British
Columbia
• Canada’s Royal Proclamation included language that “the several
Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who
live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in
the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as,
not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them,
or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds”
• The Courts would later accept and cite letters from Governor
Douglas that included comments that the Canadian colonizers
would respond negatively to mistreatment of local First Nations by
the government in regards to their land rights

9. St. Catherine’s Milling Case, 1888
Facts:
• St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber was a company that
was seeking to log in the Wabigoon Lake area of Ontario
• The First Nations in the area, various Ojibway, were
signatories to Treaty #3 with Canada
• Canada issued a licence to St. Catherine’s later arguing
that they had jurisdiction over the lands because of the
past and continuing Indian interests.
• Ontario challenged Canada’s jurisdiction, arguing that
jurisdiction of the lands transferred to the Province with
Treaty #3.

10. St. Catharine’s Milling Case (cont.)
Held:
• For the Province of Ontario
Reasons:
• All un-granted lands in a Province belong to the
provincial Crown subject only to Indian rights of
occupancy
• Aboriginal rights in the land are of a personal and
usufructuary nature (distinguished away from by the
SCC later)
• Once the Aboriginal rights are extinguished, by Treaty
for example, then the lands no longer fall under the
federal jurisdiction as lands for Indians.

11. Post-St. Catherine’s and Pre-
Calder
• Aboriginal rights were presumed to be “personal
or usufructuary” meaning they were not a right
to the land but a right to use it in certain ways
• Aboriginal rights were presumed to be
extinguished if not throughout Canada,
throughout most of Canada as per the historical
treaties
• Claims to Aboriginal rights were largely ignored
by the courts. See for example Sikyea v. the
Queen (1964) S.C.C.

12. The Calder or Nisga’a Case, 1973
Facts:
• Frank Calder, a hereditary chief of the Nisga’a,
asked the courts to clarify if the Nisga’a still held
Aboriginal rights and title in their traditional
territory.
• At the time, the Nisga’a were not signatories to a
treaty of any kind.
Issue:
• Did Aboriginal title continue to exist in British
Columbia?

13. The Calder Case (cont.)
Held:
• 3-3-1
• Justice Judson, on behalf of 3 judges, ruled that
Aboriginal title existed but was extinguished by the
implementation of the Indian Act and the Reserve
system.
• Justice Hall, on behalf of 3 judges, ruled that
Aboriginal title existed and continued to exist in BC
• Justice Pigeon ruled against the Nisga’a on a
technicality
• Technically a loss but received as a win by the
Nisga’a and Canada.

14. The Calder Case (cont.)
Reasons of Justice Hall (eventually affirmed by courts):
• The concept of property does not have to be rendered in
only traditional English terms
• The Crown had clear precedents that during
colonization, they would by default honour the rights of
existing habitants
• As evidenced by historical treaties, the Royal
Proclamation, and other historical documents, the
Crown showed, even after the Indian Act, every intention
of honouring the rights of Canada’s Aboriginal people
including providing fair compensation to them when
acquiring land
• The provincial government did not have the authority to
extinguish Aboriginal rights in BC

15. Post-Calder
• Canada established its comprehensive claims
policy within a few years and began to negotiate
modern treaties with First Nations in BC
• Canada, BC, and the Nisga’a began negotiations
that eventually resulted in the Nisga’a Final
Agreement, the first treaty in BC in nearly 100
years

16. The Constitution Act, 1982
• S. 35(1) – “The existing aboriginal and treaty
rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are
hereby recognized and affirmed”
• The SCC would later rule that this provision does
not create aboriginal rights but elevates the
existing common law rights to constitutional
status
• In accordance with s. 54, Canada’s constitutions
become the supreme laws of Canada and
override any other laws

17. The Sparrow Case,1990
Facts:
• Ronald Sparrow, a member of the Musqueam First Nation,
was fishing pursuant to a community fish licence granted to
the Band
• The length of his drift net exceeded the length allowed by the
licence
• Mr. Sparrow argued that he was fishing pursuant to an
Aboriginal right which now, according to the Constitution Act,
1982, superseded the fisheries regulations
Issue:
• What is the content and the constitutional status of Aboriginal
rights?
Held:
• Mr. Sparrow’s conviction was overturned and a re-trial was
ordered

18. Sparrow Case (cont.)
Reasons:
• Aboriginal rights continue to exist and now enjoy constitutional
protection.
• The Musqueam have an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social, and
ceremonial purposes. (FSC)
• When Aboriginal rights were raised to constitutional status, they did
so with all their existing characteristics and limitations under the
common law
• Aboriginal rights could have been extinguished prior to 1982.
• Aboriginal rights can be infringed by the Crown if they can justify
the infringement, which involves examining their objective and
balancing the Crown’s power or authority along with their fiduciary
duty to Aboriginal people

19. Sparrow (cont.)
Reasons (cont.)
• Aboriginal rights should be permitted to evolve over
time
• In regards to the Musqueam fishing rights, the
conservation of fisheries is potentially a valid reason
for infringing their Aboriginal right, because
sustaining fisheries is within the interest of the First
Nation as well. However, because of their
constitutional right, Musqueam should receive
priority treatment over non-Aboriginal fishermen
after conservation concerns have been met.

20. The Van der Peet Trilogy, 1996
• Around the same time the Courts released decisions in the Van der Peet
case, the NTC Smokehouse case, and the Gladstone case, all of which
considered claims for an Aboriginal right to sell fish or aquaculture
Facts:
• Dorothy Van der Peet, a member of the Sto:lo First Nation, sold 10 salmon
to a non-Aboriginal person for $50.
• She was charged with fisheries violations and claimed an Aboriginal right to
sell the fish.
• The Sto:lo did not successfully prove they engaged in significant trade
activities pre-contact
• The courts accepted proof that the Sto:lo engaged in significant trade
activities afterwards with the Hudson’s Bay company
Issues:
• Do the Sto-Lo have an Aboriginal right to sell fish?
Held:
• For the Crown. The conviction was upheld

21. Van der Peet Trilogy (cont.)
Reasons:
• “It must not be forgotten that the rights it recognizes and affirms are
Aboriginal [emphasis original].” para 17
• For a “practice, custom or tradition” to give rise to an Aboriginal
right, it must have been a “a central and significant part of the
society’s culture” para 55
• Activities that were not central and could be true of any human
society will not normally give rise to an Aboriginal right
• It must be a distinctive, not necessarily unique, and integral aspect
of their culture
• A valid Aboriginal right can have been influenced by European
culture, but activities which became central because of European
influence cannot subsequently give rise to an Aboriginal right

22. Van der Peet Trilogy (cont.)
Note in regards to claims to “commercial” rights:
• Claims to a commercial right to sell fish were similarly
rejected by the Courts in NTC Smokehouse but a right to “sell”
herring spawn was recognized in the Gladstone case because
the Heiltsuk First Nation was able to show significant trade
activities even as the first non-Aboriginals encountered them
and that these activities were a distinctive component of their
culture
• The courts did acknowledge a right to “trade and barter” in
Van der Peet and a right to “sell” in the Ahousaht case but not
a “commercial” right, which it defines as the accumulation of
wealth
• The most the courts have recognized would seem to amount to
a right to sell for a “modest livelihood” not the accumulation
of wealth

23. Pamajewon Case, 1996
Facts
• Two First Nations passed by-laws in regards to casinos
with the intention of allowing them on their lands
regardless of provincial licence requirements
• Mr. Pamajewon and Mr. Jones both members of the
First Nations were charged criminally with operating a
gaming house contrary to the Criminal Code
• The First Nations did have some historical evidence
showing they did traditionally play certain games that
resembled gambling
• Both First Nations claimed a right to self-government
Issues:
• Does a First Nation have an Aboriginal right to Self-
Government, and if so, what is the extent of that right?

24. Pamajewon Case (cont.)
Held:
• For the Crown. Convictions upheld
Reasons:
• The framework for testing whether an Aboriginal group has a
right to self-government is the same as a claim for any other
Aboriginal right
• In this case, the FN did not establish that this sort of game
playing was “distinctive” or “integral” to their culture
Note:
• Previously there was debate among academics whether a First
Nation should have powers like a municipality, like a
province, or something else
• Canada had already released its Inherent Right to Self
Government policy which was arguably approved

25. Summary of Aboriginal Rights
• It is a right to conduct site-specific activities
• It is based on a ‘practice, custom or tradition’ that was “a
central and significant part of the society’s culture.” – Van
der Peet at para. 55
• The Aboriginal group must have been conducting the
activity at the time of first contact
• The nature of an Aboriginal right was not frozen in time
but instead must be allowed to evolve into a modern
version of the right
• Self-Government should be approached the same as any
other Aboriginal right
• There must be a reasonable continuity of the right.

26. Limitations to Aboriginal Rights
• Aboriginal rights could have been extinguished by
the Crown prior to 1982
▫ Only by the federal crown
▫ Only where the federal crown used clear and plain
language
• Aboriginal rights can be infringed by the Crown
▫ The Crown must have a valid objective
▫ The Crown must balance its power with its fiduciary
duty to First Nations
• Unlike Aboriginal title, it is not a right to the land
itself per se

27. Adams & Coté Decisions, 1996
• In 1996, the courts simultaneously released decisions in
Adams and Coté
• Both where fishing cases that questioned the fact that the
First Nation could not make out a claim to Aboriginal
title on the waters where they were claiming a right to
fish.
• The Crown argued that Aboriginal rights were tied to
Aboriginal title which could not be made out on these
waters
• The SCC clarified that a First Nation could make a claim
to an Aboriginal right even though they might not have
had the kind of relationship that would give rise to
Aboriginal title
• Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title are related but
different

28. The Delgamuukw Case, 1997
Facts:
• Chief Delgamuukw, a chief of the Git’xan along
with several other chief’s sued on behalf of the
Git’xan and the Wetsuweten people
• They claimed “ownership” and “jurisdiction” of
their traditional lands
Issues
• What is the content of Aboriginal title and how is
a claim established?
Held
• For the First Nations. Re-trial ordered

29. Delgamuukw (cont.)
Reasons
• Aboriginal title continues to exist.
• It is sui generis (a unique species)
• It is communally held
• It is inalienable except to the Crown
• Unlike Aboriginal rights, it is a right to the land
itself
• It is a right to “exclusive use” and “occupation” of
the lands
• It cannot be used in ways that would be inconsistent
with the relationship Aboriginal people had with the
land

30. Establishing Aboriginal Title
• “It arises where the connection of a group with a
piece of land ‘was of central significance to their
distinctive culture.’” – para. 137
▫ Establishing occupation as below will almost always
serve to meet this criteria - para. 138
• “the land must have been occupied prior to
sovereignty.” – para. 143
• “if present occupation is relied on as proof of
occupation pre-sovereignty, there must be
continuity between present and pre-sovereignty
occupation.” – para. 143
• “at sovereignty, that occupation must have been
exclusive.” – para. 143

31. Content of Aboriginal Title
• “Aboriginal title is a species of Aboriginal right.”
para. 137
• “What Aboriginal title confers is the right to the
land itself.” para 138
▫ It is not just a right to conduct Aboriginal rights
• “Aboriginal title encompasses the right to
exclusive use and occupation of the land.” para
117
• Aboriginal title is communally held
• Aboriginal title normally carries with it
subsurface rights

32. Content of Aboriginal Title (cont.)
• Aboriginal title is sui generis and should not be
compared to traditional English concepts of
property law
• Aboriginal title normally carries with it a bundle
of Aboriginal rights that the First Nation holds
exclusively

33. Limitations on Aboriginal Title
• Aboriginal title cannot be used in ways that would be
irreconcilable with the relationship Aboriginals have with the
land
▫ The example they give is strip mining
• Aboriginal title can only be alienated to the Crown
▫ The courts tie this to the limitation above and compare it to
doctrine of equitable waste where a person with a life estate
cannot commit wanton damage of the property. Alienation
is still possible but the Crown must ensure there is some
beneficial interest too all beneficiaries, perhaps even
present and future
• Aboriginal title can still be infringed, including for such things
such as the “development of foreign populations” and hydro
power, para 165.

34. Use Aboriginal Rights and Title
Abstract sample - Based on where
the First Nation used to hunt and
fish at the time of contact, the First
Nation has Aboriginal Rights to
those activities in the red
boundary.
Here, the First Nation has
Aboriginal title in the blue
boundary. These were lands that
were of “central significance” to the
First Nation, including for example,
where they lived. The First Nation
has a kind of ownership here and
also has a number of Aboriginal
rights that the First Nation holds
exclusively
These Aboriginal rights and title
were a pre-existing “burden” on the
crown’s title

35. The Haida Case, 2004
Facts
• BC was in the process of considering a renewal of the
Tree Farm Licence that covered the Haida Gwai
• Delgamuukw had already stated that the Crown has an
obligation to consult with First Nations in regards to
decisions that may affect their Aboriginal rights
Issue
• Does BC still have a duty to Consult a First Nation in
regards to an unproven Aboriginal right that has already
been infringed?
Held
• For the Haida First Nation

36. Haida (cont.)
Reasons
• The Haida have a significant prima facie case for
Aboriginal title on parts of the island
• The Haida, who successfully proved having a strong
traditional relationship with the trees, have a strong
prima facie case for Aboriginal rights to the forests on
the island
• BC must consult a First Nation wherever it has “real or
constructive knowledge” that an Aboriginal right, proven
or not, could be adversely affected by the crown’s
decision
• Where the First Nation has a particularly strong claim
and/or where the decision could have a “significant
adverse impact,” then First Nation consent may be
required

37. Consultation & Accommodation
• Not an Aboriginal right per se but attached to Aboriginal
rights
• Consultation is triggered anytime the Crown has real or
constructive knowledge that a Crown action or decision
may have an adverse impact on an existing or yet
unproven Aboriginal right
• Consultation requires at a minimum, sharing sufficient
information, providing a reasonable time to evaluate the
information, and hearing the concerns expressed by the
First Nation
• Accommodation is triggered when the adverse impact is
particularly significant or when the First Nation claim to
the land is particularly strong
▫ Can rise to the level where First Nation consent is required

38. The Little Salmon/Carmacks Case, 2010
Facts
• The Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation were signatories to
a Treaty with Canada and the Yukon territorial government
• A Non-First Nation individual applied to the territorial
government for Crown land to be converted to fee simple land
• None of the treaty provisions dealt specifically with whether
consultation was necessary or not in this situation
• The territorial government made several attempts to contact
Little Salmon/Carmacks but they did not respond at first
• The territorial government proceeded with the grant

39. Little Salmon (cont.)
Held
• For the territorial government
Reasons
• The Courts ruled that the treaty did not negate the common
law right of Little Salmon to be consulted
• The notion that a treaty can represent a “complete code” is not
attainable
• The purpose of the treaty and s. 35 is to enhance the special
relationship the Crown has with Aboriginal people and not to
allow it to come to harm
• The Crown cannot negotiate away from its obligations under
s. 35
• However, the courts ruled against Little Salmon because they
felt the efforts of the Crown met their consultation obligations
with their attempts to contact Little Salmon which were
ignored for quite some time.

40. The Honour of the Crown
• The reconciliation of crown sovereignty and
Aboriginal interests is an integral part of s. 35
• The honour of the Crown involves a spectrum of
the Crown’s obligations
▫ At a minimum the Crown must act with honour
and integrity when dealing with First Nations,
avoiding “even the appearance of sharp dealing”
▫ At the higher end, when managing the assets of
First Nations for example, the Crown has a
fiduciary duty to Aboriginal people
• The Crown cannot contract out of its honour

41. Land Claims and Past Infringements
• The vast majority of developments in British
Columbia would qualify as infringements of
Aboriginal rights and title
• However, the majority of these would be
justifiable after the fact
• Justification should normally include “fair
compensation” for the “inescapable economic
component” of Aboriginal rights and title.

42. Reconciliation
• “Aboriginal rights… must be understood by reference to
both common law and Aboriginal perspectives.”
- Chief Justice Lamer in Delgamuukw at para 112
• “The reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
Canadians in a mutually respectful long-term
relationship is the grand purpose of s. 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.” – Justice Binnie at para 10
• Reconciliation is arguably not just a goal but a legal
obligation

43. Part Three
Modern Treaties
“By ordering a new trial, I do not
necessarily encourage the parties to
proceed to litigation… Ultimately, it is
through negotiated settlements, with good
faith and give and take on all sides… that
we will achieve… the reconciliation of the
pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with
the sovereignty of the Crown.” – Chief
Justice Lamer, in Delgamuukw v BC

44. General Approach to Lands
• The parties negotiate for First Nations to hold lands in fee
simple along with additional rights
• BC and Canada are unwilling to expropriate land to use in
treaty, so existing fee simple lands are usually off the table
• Many Crown lands have other existing interests on them, such
as hydro right of ways, forest licences, water licences,
subsurface rights, etc. Some of these lands and rights may or
may not be on the table
• Many Crown lands have special designations, such as parks &
conservancies. Some of these may or may not be on the table
• Much of the Crown lands in BC are too steep for practical use
• Canada and BC usually negotiate transferring existing Indian
Reserves, provincial crown lands, and any fee simple lands the
parties are able to obtain on a willing seller basis

45. Statements of Intent
• First Nations who enter the BC Treaty Process begin
by filing a Statement of Intent (SOI)
• The SOI is a map that provides an approximate
boundary of the First Nation’s Aboriginal rights
• Theoretically, the First Nation’s Aboriginal rights
and title are all contained within their SOI
• The SOI will be used as the basis for treaty
negotiations
• First Nations do not have to prove having Aboriginal
Rights and Title in their SOI as part of the process

46. Certainty
• Treaties all contain language that attempt to
clarify what is to become of Aboriginal rights
after the treaty, usually referred to as certainty
language
• Canada and BC negotiate that treaties constitute
a “full and final settlement” of past claims
• First Nations express concerns about that sort of
finality given the indeterminate time the Treaty
is meant to exist for and the incompleteness of
the information they can gather about their
existing rights

47. Certainty Models
Extinguishment Model (Historical Treaties)
• The First Nation does “cede, release, and surrender” any
Aboriginal rights they had in exchange for the treaty
rights
Modification Model (Modern Treaties in BC)
• The Aboriginal rights are “modified and continue” as
defined in the treaty
Non-Assertion Model (Tlicho in the NWT)
• The Aboriginal rights continue to exist as they do, but
the First Nation agrees only to exercise their rights as set
out in the treaty and agrees not to assert their rights in
Court for as long as the treaty is in effect

48. Aboriginal Rights to Harvest Rights
• The Treaty will define Harvest Areas and various
harvesting rights within those areas
• These harvesting rights essentially replace their
related Aboriginal rights
▫ Hunting Rights -> Treaty Rights under the
Wildlife & Migratory Birds Chapters
▫ Fishing Rights -> Fisheries Chapter
▫ Gathering Rights (such as berries, medicines,
bushes or fallen trees) -> Gathering Chapter

49. Treaty Settlement Lands
• Lands will be returned to the First Nation in fee
simple and be alienable to anyone
• Negotiator’s generally refer to these lands as
Treaty Settlement Lands (TSL)
• TSL essentially replaces Aboriginal title
• Treaties will always include at least two
categories of land, often referred to as the First
Nation lands and a harvest area, for example
Tsawwassen Lands and the Tsawwassen Wildlife
Harvest Area

50. Land Management
under Treaty
• The First Nation lands are no longer Indian
Reserves
• The First Nation does not need to abide by the
surrender process of the Indian Act
• The First Nation can define their own zoning
regulations
• The First Nation does not necessarily need
permission from any other level of government to
proceed with developments
▫ those developments do still need to be consistent with
the law, including the Final Agreement

51. Self-Government
• Law-Making provided throughout the Treaty and in the Self-
Government chapter
▫ Generally limited to matters internal to First Nations and/or their lands
▫ Matters of national interest, such as criminal law, international law,
deliberately left out
• First Nation Laws, BC Laws, and Federal Laws are all potentially
allowed to co-exist, called a concurrent law model
▫ Treaty provides for their relationship and which laws have priority
• Decision making and priority setting will be by the First Nation
government and not AANDC
• First Nation government has the ability to delegate its powers and
create its own institutions
• The First Nation government is bound by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms
• The First Nation government must also develop a constitution
setting out the government structure and various rights for citizens

52. Status of Lands and Relationship of
Laws
• Because the Indian Act no longer applies to First
Nations, various aspects of First Nation lands
and governance transfer from federal
jurisdiction to provincial or provincial laws that
previously did not apply may now apply
▫ Examples: Property Laws, including Estates &
Wills, Employment Law, Family Law, including
divorce and matrimonial property, and Tax laws

53. Consultation & Accommodation
under Treaty
• Consultation is still required in the treaty for any project that triggers an
environmental assessment and may impact the treaty rights of the First
Nation
• First Nation consent for a project is required on treaty settlement lands, but
the government can still attempt to expropriate treaty settlement lands
• Limitations to expropriation are provided in the treaty and include:
• taking the most minimal interest for the shortest amount of time
• only expropriating for a public purpose in accordance with legislation
• Compensation in the way of cash or other land is still required
• Some First Nations fear that by defining clearly where they do and do not
have Aboriginal title, as is done in treaty, they are making it easier for
developments to occur on neighboring lands which were not included as
part of the treaty.

54. Economic Benefits
• Various economic benefits are negotiated as part
of a Treaty whether they are an Aboriginal right
or not
▫ Commercial fisheries funding
▫ Tree Farm Licences
▫ Resource Revenue Sharing
▫ Economic Development funds
▫ Continued funding for programs and services
• These are usually contained in various side
agreements to the treaty

55. Cases (chronological order)
• St. Catharines Milling & Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888) 14 App
Cas. 46 (H.L.)
• Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313
(S.C.C.)
• R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 (S.C.C.)
• R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 (S.C.C.)
• R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 (S.C.C.)
• R. v. NTC Smokehouse, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 (S.C.C.)
• R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821 (S.C.C.)
• R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 (S.C.C.)
• R. v. Coté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 (S.C.C.)
• Deglamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 (S.C.C.)
• Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3
S.C.R. 511 (S.C.C.)
• Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks, [2010] S.C.R. 53 (S.C.C.)
All available at www.canlii.org except the St. Chatharines Milling case