Although a casual reading of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Nikal and R. v. Lewis might suggest otherwise, this thesis will argue that Court's decisions in two recent British Columbia aboriginal fishing cases do not apply in Ontario. In doing so, it will be shown that the Supreme Court of Canada relied on evidence of historic Crown policies towards aboriginal fishing rights in Upper Canada in the absence of appropriate context as to how those policies evolved. As a result, the Court wrongly concluded that fisheries could not be the subject of exclusive aboriginal rights. As a result of its reliance on historically discriminatory policies of the Crown, it will be shown that the Court favoured the fishing privileges of non-aboriginal Canadians over the pre-existing rights and title of aboriginal peoples. In exploring these issues, this thesis will include a review of case-law, legislation and historical materials from the 17$\sp{\rm th}$, 18$\sp{\rm th}$ and 19$\sp{\rm th}$ centuries as well as contemporary case-law and legislation.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:uottawa.ca/oai:ruor.uottawa.ca:10393/8552 |
| Date | January 1999 |
| Creators | Blair, Peggy Janice. |
| Contributors | Benidickson, J., |
| Publisher | University of Ottawa (Canada) |
| Source Sets | Université d’Ottawa |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 153 p. |
Page generated in 0.0054 seconds