Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Reply To Professor Pothier's Review Of Power Without Law: The Supreme Court Of Canada, The Marshall Decisions And The Failure Of Judicial Activism, Alex M. Cameron
A Reply To Professor Pothier's Review Of Power Without Law: The Supreme Court Of Canada, The Marshall Decisions And The Failure Of Judicial Activism, Alex M. Cameron
Dalhousie Law Journal
The Spring 2010 edition of the Dalhousie Law Journal contains an article by Professor Dianne Pothier, discussing my book, Power Without Law: The Supreme Court of Canada, The Marshall Decisions and the Failure of JudicialActivism. In the review, Professor Pothier strongly disagrees with the book's critique of the Supreme Court of Canada's majority decision in R. v. Marshall. In particular, she disagrees with the argument that the alleged treaty right of aboriginals to hunt, fish, gather and trade for necessaries, described in Justice Binnie's majority decision, is constitutionally flawed. Professor Pothier also suggests that the argument is the central thesis …
Alex M. Cameron, Power Without Law. The Supreme Court Of Canada, .The Marshall Decisions, And The Failure Of Judicial Activism, Dianne Pothier
Alex M. Cameron, Power Without Law. The Supreme Court Of Canada, .The Marshall Decisions, And The Failure Of Judicial Activism, Dianne Pothier
Dalhousie Law Journal
Alex Cameron's book, Power WithoutLaw, is a scathing critique ofthe Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 decisions in R. v. Marshall upholding Donald Marshall Jr.'s Mi'kmaq treaty claim. Cameron's book has attracted a lot of attention because of the author's position as Crown counsel for the government of Nova Scotia. Cameron was not involved as a lawyer in the Marshallcase itself. As a fisheries prosecution, Marshallwas a matter of federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and Nova Scotia chose not to intervene. However, Cameron did become involved in a subsequent case dealing with the same series …
Book Review Of Power Without Law: The Supreme Court Of Canada, The Marshall Decisions, And The Failure Of Judicial Activism By Alex M Cameron, Dianne Pothier
Book Review Of Power Without Law: The Supreme Court Of Canada, The Marshall Decisions, And The Failure Of Judicial Activism By Alex M Cameron, Dianne Pothier
Dianne Pothier Collection
Alex Cameron’s book, Power Without Law, is a scathing critique of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1999 decisions in R. v. Marshall upholding Donald Marshall Jr.’s Mi’kmaq treaty claim. Cameron’s book has attracted a lot of attention because of the author’s position as Crown counsel for the government of Nova Scotia. Cameron was not involved as a lawyer in the Marshall case itself. As a fisheries prosecution, Marshall was a matter of federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867, 3 and Nova Scotia chose not to intervene. However, Cameron did become involved in a subsequent …
Understanding The Progression Of Mi'kmaw Law, Jaime Battiste
Understanding The Progression Of Mi'kmaw Law, Jaime Battiste
Dalhousie Law Journal
Over the past 250 years, the recognition and implementation of the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Santi Mawio'mi of the Mi'kmaq has been a hard and bitter struggle for justice. Building on Mi'kmaw Aboriginal knowledge and legal traditions that inform their aboriginal and treaty rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed a Mi'kmaw right to hunt, fish, and gather in their traditional territory. The author focuses on the progression of Mi'kmaw law, drawing on the original teachings of the Mawio'mi embedded in Netukulimk and then shifting to the current legal strategy that creates a constitutional jurisgensis and a …
Brightening The Covenant Chain: Aboriginal Treaty Meanings In Law And History After Marshall, Mark D. Walters
Brightening The Covenant Chain: Aboriginal Treaty Meanings In Law And History After Marshall, Mark D. Walters
Dalhousie Law Journal
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Marshall raises some difficult questions about the interpretation of Crown-Aboriginal treaties, especially treaties dating from the eighteenth century. The Court acknowledged that the treaty context is important to establishing the meaning of treaty texts, and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal perspectives must be considered. As a result, judges must have regard to historical analyses of Crown-Aboriginal relations when interpreting these old treaties. In this article, the author explores some of the complex theoretical problems that such legal-historical analyses create, focusing in particular upon the possibility that lawyers and judges may reach …
Du Dialogue Au Monologue - Un Commentaire Sur I'Arrêt R. V. Marshall, Nathalie Des Rosiers
Du Dialogue Au Monologue - Un Commentaire Sur I'Arrêt R. V. Marshall, Nathalie Des Rosiers
Dalhousie Law Journal
The author develops a model of constitutional dialogue which aims at helping the resolution of majority-minority conflicts. The model is applied to the aboriginal rights context. The author concludes that because of the ambivalences expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Van der Peet case in particular, the federal government has not incorporated the Sparrow-Badger approach in its litigation and has failed even to attempt to comply with the justification requirements. This failure of the federal government to endorse the Sparrow-Badger approach in its continuing litigation strategy is the real tragedy in the Marshall case.
Marshalling Principles From The Marshall Morass, Leonard Rotman
Marshalling Principles From The Marshall Morass, Leonard Rotman
Dalhousie Law Journal
The Marshall case is the latest in a long series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions concerned with the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples in Canada. While the majority and minority judgments agreed on the principles of treaty interpretation to be applied in the case, the significant divergence in opinion between the majority and minority decisions provides important commentary on the differences between articulating and applying these principles. The Marshall case is also noteworthy for the manner in which it addresses similarities and differences pertaining to aboriginal and treaty rights. Because of these various traits, the …
Getting Their Feet Wet: The Supreme Court And The Practical Implementation Of Treaty Rights In The Marshall Case, Phillip Saunders
Getting Their Feet Wet: The Supreme Court And The Practical Implementation Of Treaty Rights In The Marshall Case, Phillip Saunders
Dalhousie Law Journal
Judicial decisions which recognize aboriginal or treaty rights to natural resources inevitably lead on to a process of negotiation, as governments and aboriginal and other users of the resource define the access and management regimes which allow for practical implementation of the legal rights. Courts should be cognizant of the impact of their decisions on such negotiations, and provide adequate clarity and substantive guidance to negotiators. This article considers the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall case from this perspective, and details the shortcomings which made the prospects for successful negotiations less favourable. The weaknesses in …
Prosecuting The Fishery: The Supreme Court Of Canada And The Onus Of Proof In Aboriginal Fishing Cases, Peggy J. Blair
Prosecuting The Fishery: The Supreme Court Of Canada And The Onus Of Proof In Aboriginal Fishing Cases, Peggy J. Blair
Dalhousie Law Journal
In Sparrow and other decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has outlined certain tests which must be met by the Crown and defence in the trial of aboriginal fishing cases where s.35 rights are at issue. This article describes the shifting burdens of proof which have resulted from those tests. The author argues that the Supreme Court of Canada has imposed procedural and substantive requirements of proof on the defence which may in themselves be unconstitutional.
Mikmaw Tenure In Atlantic Canada, James [Sákéj] Youngblood Henderson
Mikmaw Tenure In Atlantic Canada, James [Sákéj] Youngblood Henderson
Dalhousie Law Journal
The Supreme Court of Canada has characterized aboriginal title to land as a sui generis legal interest. This essay describes the sui generis interest of Mikmaw tenure in Atlantic Canada from a Mikmaq linguistic perspective. The author argues the prerogative treaties and legislation of the eighteenth century suggest it is a reserved and protected tenure, which in Eurocentric law might be reconceptualized as allodial tenure.
Justification And Cultural-Authority In S.35(1) Of The Constitution Act, 1982: Regina V. Sparrow, Chris Tennant
Justification And Cultural-Authority In S.35(1) Of The Constitution Act, 1982: Regina V. Sparrow, Chris Tennant
Dalhousie Law Journal
Regina v. Sparrow is the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada under s.35(1) of the Constitution Ac 1982. The case has wide-reaching implications for the recognition and limitation of aboriginal rights. This case comment will explore some of the implications of Sparrow, with a focus on the test developed by the Court for the justification of government regulation of aboriginal rights. In particular, the question of the cultural authority of non-aboriginal judges to justify legislation regulating aboriginal rights will be addressed.