The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the constitutional right of the Métis to hunt in the Canadian legal consciousness in the four levels of court that heard the Powley case and comment on the judicial approach and observations. After a comparative analysis of the precedent setting Powley decision, a brief examination is undertaken of two recent cases regarding Métis rights in Canada: Laviolette and Willison. <p>Ultimately, the purpose of this research has been to show the treatment of Métis and First Nations Aboriginal rights have not been treated equally and to confront the challenges that this analysis raises. Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution has not provided the protections to Aboriginal rights that one would expect. In order to make changes to the legal system I have identified some fundamental problems with Aboriginal law in Canada associated with the identification of the source of those rights. <p>Further, I have made some suggestions on the approaches that could be taken to change the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding its interpretations of Métis rights.

The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the constitutional right of the Métis to hunt in the Canadian legal consciousness in the four levels of court that heard the Powley case and comment on the judicial approach and observations. After a comparative analysis of the precedent setting Powley decision, a brief examination is undertaken of two recent cases regarding Métis rights in Canada: Laviolette and Willison. <p>Ultimately, the purpose of this research has been to show the treatment of Métis and First Nations Aboriginal rights have not been treated equally and to confront the challenges that this analysis raises. Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution has not provided the protections to Aboriginal rights that one would expect. In order to make changes to the legal system I have identified some fundamental problems with Aboriginal law in Canada associated with the identification of the source of those rights. <p>Further, I have made some suggestions on the approaches that could be taken to change the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding its interpretations of Métis rights.

En av de grundläggande rättigheterna som tillerkänns den enskilde är egendomsskyddet. Denna rättighet är stadgad i regeringsformen. Ingrepp i den enskildes egendomsskydd medges om det syftar till att tillgodose ett angeläget allmänt intresse samt om inskränkningen klarar det test på proportionalitet som skapats genom praxis. Kravet på förvärvstillstånd i jordförvärvslagen är en typ av ingrepp i den enskildes egendomsskydd. Att den enskilde inte fritt kan förfoga över sin egendom genom att sälja den till vem han vill utgör ett sådant ingrepp. För att ingreppet ska anses vara proportionerligt krävs det att enskild ersätts genom att staten löser in fastigheten till det pris som avtalats. Inlösen vägras om priset skulle betydligt överstiga egendomens värde. Det är länsstyrelsen som har bevisbörda på att priset betydligt överstiger egendomens marknadsvärde med hänsyn till dess avkastning och marknadsvärdet på andra nyttigheter, till exempel eventuell jakträtt. Staten, genom länsstyrelsen, kräver att köpare sedan tidigare äger mark inom området för att kunna erhålla förvärvstillstånd. Detta är av länsstyrelsen själv uppställt krav som inte tydligt framgår vid en genomläsning av tillståndslagstiftning. I denna uppsats presenteras vilka konsekvenser en sådan marknadsbegränsning får på frågan om värdering av fastighet vid inlösen. Frågan ställs huruvida länsstyrelsen agerar i enlighet med lagen när, vid vägrat förvärvstillstånd fastigheten ej löses in till det pris där även eventuell jakträtt åsätts det marknadsmässiga värde som bedöms på en marknad som ej är begränsad. Frågan besvaras i uppsatsens avslutande kommentarer. / One of the fundamental rights conferred on the individual is the property protection. This fundamental right is enacted in the Swedish Constitution (Regeringsformen). Interference with a person’s right to his own property is allowed if it aims to meet a public interest and if it passes the test of proportionality created through practice. The requirement for an authorization to acquire property according the Swedish Land Acquisition Act (Jordförvärvslagen) is a type of interference with a person`s right to his own property. When the individual cannot freely dispose over his property by selling it to whoever he wants, is an example on such interference. In order to such a procedure be considered proportionate it requires that the Government (through the County Administrative Board) remunerates the individual at the price the parties (seller and buyer) agreed on. The Government`s obligation to remunerate falls if the price would significantly exceed the property`s value. It is the County Administrative Board that has the burden of proof that the price significantly exceeds the property`s market value with respect to its return and the market value of other utilities, such as hunting rights. The County Administrative Board requires that buyers already own property in the area in order to obtain such approvals. This is by the Board itself set up requirement that is not apparent when studying the state of law. This paper presents the implications of such a market restriction on the question on the valuation of the property at redemption. The question is whether the County Administrative Board acts in accordance with the state of law when, after not allowing the acquisition, the property is not redeemed at the price where even possible hunting rights are assigned the market value as assessed in a market that is not limited. The question is answered in the final comments of this paper.