• Libraries
    • Log in to:
    View Item 
    •   MSpace Home
    • Faculty of Graduate Studies (Electronic Theses and Practica)
    • FGS - Electronic Theses and Practica
    • View Item
    •   MSpace Home
    • Faculty of Graduate Studies (Electronic Theses and Practica)
    • FGS - Electronic Theses and Practica
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Solemn promises: treaty rights in the shadow of Sparrow

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    McGilligan_Thesis.pdf (1.369Mb)
    Date
    2005-05-11
    Author
    McGilligan, Stephen M.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Aboriginal rights are rooted in the historical relationship between the Indigenous peoples of Canada and the Crown and attempt to reconcile the prior occupation of lands by the Aboriginal peoples with claims of Crown Sovereignty. Treaty rights, on the other hand, owe their existence to a series of consensual agreements between the signatories and represent an ongoing relationship between the parties. Treaties represent an integral part of the early Indigenous-European relationship, initially offering peace and friendship and later a vehicle through which the Europeans could acquire lands from the Aboriginal peoples for settlement. In the seminal decision R. v. Sparrow, the Supreme Court of Canada for the first time attempted to address the scope and content of these constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights. The court concluded that Aboriginal rights existed at common law and that these common law rights, whatever they may be, received constitutional protection by virtue of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Thus, any legislative enactment designed to infringe on these rights must meet constitutional standards for justification. Despite strict limitations on infringement, in the period following Sparrow, the Court has watered down the effects of this decision by diluting the legislative intent portion of the test to such a degree that it risks becoming a non-factor in the justification process. In this paper, I contend that the use of the Sparrow test, particularly as that test has been interpreted by the Court in the period following Sparrow is flawed, and to use this test as a tool for determining when constitutionally protected Aboriginal treaty rights might be infringed multiplies this flaw to a critical point.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/1993/117
    Collections
    • FGS - Electronic Theses and Practica [25494]

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of MSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV