On this page
On June 26, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada issued an unprecedented decision on indigenous land rights in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, granting the first declaration of Aboriginal Title in Canadian history.
Chief Roger William (the representive plaintiff, centre), standing next to Chief Judy Wilson (Secwepemc) and Chief Wayne Christian (Secwepemc) and the Tsilhqot'in Legal team (David Rosenberg, Jay Nelson) and the Secwepemc, Okanagan, UBCIC legal team (Louise Mandell, Ardith Walkem and Prof. Nicole Schabus - far left in the picture).
Photo reproduced from Thompson Rivers University under Creative Commons license.
Cases by category
Fishing & hunting
Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011]
Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 SCR 535, 2011 SCC 56
Summary:
This case concerns the distinction between pre- and post-contact practices of First Nations in a particular region of the B.C. coast. While some of their fishing and trading practices were held to be distinctive of and integral to their pre-contact culture, some of the commercial activities involved were not, and so the group appealed.
Location:
Northwest coast of British Columbia between the estuaries of the Nass and lower Skeena rivers
Indigenous communities involved:
Lax Kw'alaams
R. v. Kapp, [2008]
R. v. Kapp, [2008] 2 SCR 483, 2008 SCC 41
Summary:
The appellants, non-aboriginal commercial fishers, were charged with fishing at a prohibited time. They argued that this prohibition, based on the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and the issuance of communal fishing licenses to three aboriginal bands which permitted aboriginal-only fishing periods, constituted racial discrimination.
Location:
Fraser River, British Columbia
R. v. Morris, [2006]
R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 SCR 915, 2006 SCC 59
Summary:
Two members of the Tsartlip Nation shot a hunting decoy set up to catch illegal hunters. They were found to have been hunting at a prohibited time in a prohibited manner (at night, with illumination), but challenged this finding based on their rights under the North Saanich Treaty of 1852.
Location:
Saanich, southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Tsartlip Indian Band of the Saanich Nation
R. v. Marshall, [1999]
R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456 and R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 533
Summary:
A member of the Mi'kmaq community was charged with fishing out of season without a license, and selling his catch without a license. The case deals with the modern applicability or lack thereof of laws put in place by Canadian settlers to regulate trade.
Location:
New Brunswick
Indigenous communities involved:
Mi'kmaq
R. v. Côté, [1996]
Summary:
Algonquin members of an expedition to teach traditional fishing methods were charged and convicted of entering a controlled harvest zone without adherence to proper procedure, as well as an additional charge for one of the members of the expedition for fishing without a license. The Algonquins challenged these convictions under the Constitution Act, maintaining that they were exercising rights to fish on ancestral land.
Location:
- Kitigan Zibi, Quebec
- Quebec ZEC (zone d'exploitation contrôlée)
Indigenous communities involved:
- Algonquin Nation
- Desert River Band
- Maniwaki reserve
R. v. Gladstone, [1996]
R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 SCR 723
Summary:
The appellants were charged with attempting to sell fish caught without the proper license. At issue was 1) whether their inquiry as to the buyer's "interest" in their goods constituted intent to sell and 2) whether the fishing and subsequent sale were covered by existing aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act. PART OF THE VAN DER PEET TRILOGY OF CASES.
Location:
Vancouver, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Heiltsuk
R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996]
R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 SCR 672
Summary:
The question in this case was whether the appellant's conviction for selling and purchasing fish not caught under the authority of a commercial fishing licence was an infringement of aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Consitution Act. The appellant did posess a food fishing license, but this did not cover commercial activity at the time. PART OF THE VAN DER PEET TRILOGY OF CASES.
Location:
British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
- Sheshaht
- Opetchesah
R. v. Van der Peet, [1996]
R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507
Summary:
The appellant was charged and convicted of selling fish without a proper license. The issue facing the court was whether the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, which prohibited the sale of these fish under the appellant's existing Indian food fishing license, infringed upon her rights under section 35 of the Consitution Act. PART OF THE VAN DER PEET TRILOGY OF CASES.
Location:
British Columbia
R. v. Nikal, [1996]
R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 SCR 1013
Summary:
A member of the Moricetown Band was convicted of fishing without a license. He appealed on the grounds that the requirement for a license to fish on the river running through his community's land infringed his aboriginal rights.
Location:
Moricetown, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
- Moricetown Indian Band
- Wet'suwet'en
R. v. Lewis, [1996]
Summary:
Members of the Squamish Indian Band engaged in "net fishing" just outside the boundaries of the Cheakamus Reserve. The case dealt with the issue of reserve boundaries as well as with the use of public waters and the duty of the Crown to provide fishing states.
Location:
Squamish, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Squamish
R. v. Badger, [1996]
R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 SCR 771
Summary:
The appellants were status Indians under Treaty 8 who had been hunting for food on privately owned lands surrendered by Treaty 8. The question at hand was whether their right to hunt extended to these lands, and whether that right was negated by subsequent legislation (the National Resources Transfer Agreement).
Location:
Treaty 8 First Nations territory, northern Alberta
R. v. Sparrow, [1990]
R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075
Summary:
The appellant, charged with fishing with larger net than allowed under his Band's Indian food fishing license, appealed on the basis that the restrictions of the license conflicted with his Aboriginal rights under the Constitution Act.
Location:
British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Musqueam
R. v. Horseman, [1990]
R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 SCR 901
Summary:
The appellant in this case was charged with unlawfully trafficking in wildlife. While hunting moose, he killed a bear in self defence. At the time he did not hold a license to hunt grizzly bears; however, a year later, he obtained one, and sold the bear's hide. At issue is whether the man's rights under Treaty 8 supercede his conviction.
Location:
Treaty 8 First Nations territory, northern Alberta
Land title
Williams Lake Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, [2014]
Williams Lake Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014 TRPC 3
Summary:
A claim grounded in the failure of the B.C. colony to act in the Band’s interest by enforcing its own policies and laws; first, to protect the land where their settlement was located at the foot of Williams Lake from being pre-empted and second, to fail to recover for its benefit the land unlawfully pre-empted. The Claimant says that thereafter Canada failed to meet its responsibility to set apart the Village Lands as reserve.
Location:
Williams Lake, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Secwepemc Nation
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, [2014]
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256
Summary:
A semi-nomadic grouping of six bands objected to the granting by the B.C. government of a commercial logging license on land they consider part of their traditional territory. The case dealt in part with the issue of whether Aboriginal land title claims required regular occupation of the land in question.
Location:
Central British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Tsilhqot'in Nation
Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, [2010]
Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 103
Summary:
This case concerns whether the territorial government of the Yukon proceeded without proper consultation or regard to First Nations concerns when they granted a parcel of Little Salmon/Carmacks hunting/fishing/subsistence lands to a non-member of the Little Salmon/Carmacks nations.
Location:
Carmacks, Yukon
Indigenous communities involved:
Little Salmon/Carmacks
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004]
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73
Summary:
The Minister of Forests allowed the transfer of a "Tree Farm License" from one firm to another, prompting Haida to renew their objections to the license's coverage of the lands of Haida Gwaii, which had not been titled to them in any treaty, but to which they had long laid claim. The case considers the moral, if not legal, obligation for consultation with First Nations groups in this type of situation.
Location:
Haida Gwaii, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Haida
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004]
Summary:
The Taku River Tlingit First Nation ("TRTFN"), which participated in the environmental assessment process engaged in by the Province under the Environmental Assessment Act in response to a mining company's petition, objected to the company's plan to build a road through a portion of the TRTFN's traditional territory. The Province granted the company road building rights, but the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the decision on grounds based on administrative law and on its Aboriginal rights and title.
Location:
Northwestern British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Taku River Tlingit First Nation
Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, [2002]
Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816, 2002 SCC 54
Summary:
An issue around a tax refund for the purchase of tobacco in a First Nations community led to disagreement over the community's status and whether it could be treated as a reserve legally, even though the village had been "set aside" but never formally created as a reserve.
Location:
Ross River, Yukon Territory
Indigenous communities involved:
Kaska-Dene
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997]
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
Summary:
Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs claimed, among them, that over 58,000 square kilometers of British Columbia land should be under their jurisdiction. The government counterclaimed that the land should not be ceded, and instead the appellants should be pursuing compensation from the federal government.
Location:
British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
- Gitksan
- Wet'suwet'en
Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Canada, [1997]
Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119
Summary:
In the 1950s the band authorized BC Hydro to use some of their land to install hydro lines, and the agreement did not specify an exact termination date; in the 1990s, the band appealed to the BC Supreme Court and later to the SCC, claiming that the part of the Indian Act under which the agreement was made was not intended to continue the agreement indefinitely.
Location:
Alberni Valley, Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Opetchesaht
St. Mary's Indian Band v. Cranbrook (City), [1997]
St. Mary's Indian Band v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 657
Summary:
The Band handed over control of some of their land for municipal use, on the condition that the land would be returned to them if it was no longer needed for those purposes. However, at issue was the question of whether the land continued to be part of the reserve for property tax purposes, having been "otherwise than absolutely" surrendered.
Location:
- Kamloops, British Columbia
- Cranbrook, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
ʔaq'am (also known as St. Mary's Indian Band; member of the Ktunaxa Nation)
R. v. Adams, [1996]
R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101
Summary:
The appellant, a Mohawk, was charged with fishing without a license. There was no regular license available for the area, however, there may have been a special license available, for which the appellant did not apply. The question facing the supreme court was that of overturning his conviction under the land title sections of the Constitution Act -- a question which led to consideration of whether aboriginal title only applies to land, or to a broader range of rights.
Location:
Lake St. Francis, Quebec
Indigenous communities involved:
Mohawk
Religion & culture
R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006]
R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686, 2006 SCC 54
Summary:
The respondents were charged with harvesting Crown timber from Crown lands - lands which were traditionally harvested by their communities. The case hinged on whether the respondents' aboriginal rights allowed the use of this timber for personal purposes.
Location:
New Brunswick
Indigenous communities involved:
- Maliseet
- Mi'kmaq
Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002]
Summary:
Conflict between Interfor and the Gitksan over areas Interfor intended to develop which contained a significant number of culturally, historically, and scientifically significant Culturally Modified Trees (CMTs). The case considers the relative weight of sections of the Heritage Conservation Act which prohibit this type of development and which allow exceptions to the prohibition.
Location:
British Columbia central coast
Indigenous communities involved:
Gitksan/Gitxaala/Kitkatla Band
R. v. Sioui, [1990]
R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025
Summary:
Members of the Huron Band were charged with cutting down trees, camping in making fires in a park. The case explored whether the regulations they were charged under were applicable, and whether agreements made in the 18th century constituted a treaty that protected their rights to these activities.
Location:
Gatineau, Quebec
Indigenous communities involved:
Huron
Self-government
Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, [2011]
Summary:
The claimants in this case were members of a Metis community in Alberta, but when they registered as status Indians under the Indian Act in order to obtain medical benefits, their membership in the Metis settlement was revoked. They sought a declaration that this dismissal was unconstitutional.
Location:
Peavine Métis Settlement, Alberta
Indigenous communities involved:
Peavine Métis Settlement
R. v. Pamajewon, [1996]
R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821
Summary:
Members of both the Shawanaga and Eagle Lake First Nations were convicted of criminal offenses for conduction gambling operations on reserve lands. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada citing the right to self-government granted in the Constitution Act, and it fell to the Court to decide whether the Criminal Code sections that had been violated were applicable to these appellants and these activities.
Location:
Southern Ontario, on the Shawanaga and Eagle Lake reserves.
Aboriginal communities involved:
- Shawanaga First Nation
- Eagle Lake First Nation
Taxation
Bastien Estate v. Canada, [2011]
Bastien Estate v. Canada, 2011 SCC 38
Summary:
A status Indian belonging to the Huron-Wendat Nation, who has invested income in a bank on the Wendake Reserve, considered his income from this investment exempt from taxation under the Indian Act. However, his 2001 taxes were assessed to include this investment, holding that the bank generated its revenues outside of the reserve.
Location:
Wendake Reserve, near Quebec City, Quebec
Indigenous communities involved:
Huron-Wendat Nation
Williams v. Canada, [1992]
Williams v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877
Summary:
The issue at question was whether the appellant's regular and "enhanced" unemployment benefits should be taxable, given his status and the source of his income (which was his Band). This case established new ways of assessing whether such benefits should be taxable, including the locations of the employer, employee, work, and payment.
Location:
Saskatchewan
Treaty rights
Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014
Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 447
Summary:
This case concerned the provisions of Treaty 3, signed in 1873 between the Dominion of Canada and the Ojibway Chiefs. In 2005 the Ojibway signatories' descendents challenged the right of the Ontario government to issue licenses for use of some of the lands protected by the treaty.
Location:
Keewatin area, Northwestern Ontario
Indigenous communities involved:
Grassy Narrows First Nation (Ojibway)
Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd.,[2013]
Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd., 2013 SCC 26, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 227
Summary:
Members of the Fort Nelson First Nation erected a camp to block logging access to sites located in their territory, arguing that the grantin gof logging licenses in this area by the Crown breached the constitutional duty to consult as well as their treaty rights.
Location:
Fort Nelson, British Columbia
Indigenous communities involved:
Fort Nelson First Nation
Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v. Canada, [2009]
Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v. Canada, 2009 SCC 9, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 222
Summary:
The Ermineskin Nation and the Samson Nation, bands entitled to financial, among other, benefits under Treaty 6 of 1876, filed claims that the Crown had failed in its fiduciary obligations to them. This was based on what they saw as refusal or neglect of the Crown to make prudent investments of the oil and gas royalties it collected and held for the bands under the terms of the treaty.
Location:
Samson Reserve and Pigeon Lake Reserves, Alberta
Indigenous communities involved:
- Ermineskin Nation
- Samson Nation
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005]
Summary:
Conflict over lack of consultation prior to the federal approval of a road which would run through the Mikisew Reserve, land guaranteed by Treaty 8 (1899). Despite qualifications in the treaty about possible development of the land by the government, objections to the road went beyond the closure of hunting/trapping areas to the possible negative effects on traditional lifestyle practices in the area.
Location:
The area surrendered to the Crown under Treaty 8 covers 840,000 square kilometres of what is now northern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, northwestern Saskatchewan and the southern portion of the Northwest Territories.
Indigenous communities involved:
Big Island Lake Cree Nation, Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, Treaty 8 Tribal Association, Blueberry River First Nations and Assembly of First Nations
Additional resources
Map of relevant locations & communities
View a companion map: Supreme Court of Canada Decisions Involving Indigenous People
Related SFU guides and resources
Department of Indigenous Studies
Public Policy information resources
The End Is Not Nigh: Reason Over Alarmism in Analysing the Tsilhqot'in Decision by Kenneth Coates and Dwight Newman
Legal research resources
Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII)
Commentary on Section 35 of the Constitution Act from Indigenous Foundations at UBC
Overview of Aboriginal Rights and Title from Indigenous Foundations at UBC
Explanation of the Van der Peet case from Indigenous Foundations at UBC
BC Assembly of First Nations list of Landmark Supreme Court Cases (no current link)
Professor Joseph Magnet's summary of constitutional legal issues relating to Aboriginal Peoples UOttawa (no current link)
Indigenous Law Portal from the Library of Congress
Indigenous research resources
UBC's Xwi7xwa Library's Thesaurus of BC First Nations Names
Indigenous Studies iPortal at University of Saskatchewan
Indigenous Foundations at UBC