November 29, Slides 11-13 Flashcards
R. v. Sparrow (1990)
What does R. v. Sparrow (1990) establish about Section 35(1) rights?
The case confirms that Section 35(1) protects existing Aboriginal and treaty rights but allows government regulation if it meets a standard of justification. The Crown must demonstrate that any infringement is necessary, minimally impairing, and serves a compelling purpose.
R. v. Sparrow (1990)
How does R. v. Sparrow view the Crown’s role in relation to Aboriginal rights?
The case emphasizes that the Crown holds a “substantive promise” to protect Aboriginal rights. While sovereignty resides with the Crown, it must act honorably by justifying any actions that negatively affect protected rights.
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004)
What principle about reconciliation does Haida Nation v. British Columbia establish?
The case highlights that treaties reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty, acknowledging the coexistence of these authorities. It underscores the need for mutual respect and negotiation.
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004)
What is the Crown’s duty according to Haida Nation v. British Columbia?.
The Crown has a constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous peoples when their rights might be affected and to accommodate their interests where necessary. This duty arises even in the absence of finalized treaties or proven title
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014)
What precedent does Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014) set regarding Aboriginal title?
The case confirms that Aboriginal title provides exclusive rights to use and control land and requires consent from title holders for government or third-party use. It strengthens the legal recognition of Indigenous land rights.
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014)
How did the Crown fail in its duty to the Tsilhqot’in Nation?
The Crown breached its duty by neither consulting nor accommodating the Tsilhqot’in on land use. This failure violated the honor of the Crown and demonstrated a lack of respect for Aboriginal title.
Why is the Crown’s reputation for keeping promises important in these cases?
The Crown’s legitimacy and sovereignty are tied to its ability to honor agreements and uphold constitutional protections. Failing to keep promises undermines trust and challenges its authority.
How do these cases collectively shape the interpretation of Section 35(1)?
These cases clarify that Section 35(1) ensures substantive protections for Aboriginal rights, imposes a duty of consultation and accommodation, and recognizes the coexistence of Indigenous sovereignty with Crown sovereignty. They collectively emphasize the Crown’s obligation to act honorably.
What does Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014) say about the relationship between Aboriginal title and land use?
The decision affirms that Aboriginal title grants Indigenous groups the right to decide how the land is used and to benefit from its resources. Governments or third parties must obtain consent from title holders or justify any infringement under strict legal standards.
How do these rulings reflect the principle of the “honor of the Crown”?
The “honor of the Crown” requires the government to act with integrity, consultation, and respect for Indigenous rights. This principle ensures that the Crown’s actions align with its commitments and constitutional responsibilities toward Indigenous peoples.
