Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., (1993) 30 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Taggart, Lambert, Hutcheon, Macfarlane and Wallace, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 25, 1993
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);1993 CanLII 4516 (BC CA);104 DLR (4th) 470;[1993] 5 WWR 97;30 BCAC 1;[1993] BCJ No 1395 (QL);[1993] 5 CNLR 1;49 WAC 1

Delgamuukw v. B.C. (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);

    49 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Delgamuukw, also known as Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Houses of Delgamuukw and Haaxw (and others suing on their own behalf and on behalf of members of thirty eight Gitksan Houses and twelve Wet'Suwet'En Houses as shown in Schedule 1) (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and The Attorney General of Canada (defendants/respondents)

(CA013770)

Indexed As: Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Taggart, Lambert, Hutcheon, Macfarlane and Wallace, JJ.A.

June 25, 1993.

Summary:

Fifty-one aboriginal plaintiffs, all hereditary chiefs of 71 Houses, individually and on behalf of the members of their Houses, brought an action claiming declarations of "ownership" of, and "jurisdiction" over some 22,000 square miles of territory in central British Columbia, as well as damages for wrongful appropriation and use of the territory by the province. Ownership of 133 individual areas was claimed.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in [1991] 3 W.W.R. 97, dismissed the claims for ownership, jurisdiction and damages, but held that the plaintiffs were entitled to aboriginal rights for non-exclusive sustenance gathering purposes over large portions of the territory, that the plaintiffs' rights were, however, extinguished by 13 colonial instruments enacted prior to British Columbia's entry into Confederation in 1871, and that the Crown owed a fiduciary duty to permit aboriginals to use unoccupied or vacant Crown land for sustenance until that land was dedicated for another purpose. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs' action against the federal Crown and the province's counterclaim. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in many of his fact findings. On the appeal the province conceded that there was no "blanket extinguishment" of the plaintiffs' aboriginal rights, but that some aboriginal rights may have been extinguished or impaired as a result of the province exercising its rights under s. 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The plaintiffs and the province requested the court to decide some questions now and adjourn the appeal for two years to allow the parties to negotiate other issues, the court retaining jurisdiction over same and, failing settlement, for the court to hear and decide them.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert, J.A., dissenting, and Hutcheon, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal by varying the trial judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for ownership, jurisdiction and damages, but held that the plaintiffs' aboriginal rights were not extinguished by the 13 colonial instruments. The province's cross-appeal against dismissal of its counterclaim against the federal Crown was dismissed as abandoned.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4408

Treaties and proclamations - General - Where applicable - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 never applied in British Columbia - See paragraphs 176 to 177, 486 to 494, 520, 1021 to 1040, 1085 to 1090.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5564

Lands - Land claims - Requirements for claim for ownership - Aboriginal plaintiffs claimed ownership of territory in British Columbia - The trial judge dismissed their claim for failing to establish exclusive possession of the land, and the boundaries (internal and external) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' submissions that the judge ignored or was clearly wrong in assessing the evidence or ignored relevant considerations - The court found no palpable and overriding error in the judge's determination that the plaintiffs' ancestors did not control any part of the territory, other than village sites, in a way that would justify a declaration of ownership - The court found the judge applied the correct test of exclusive control and possession as a prerequisite to establishing aboriginal ownership - See paragraphs 71 to 128, 275 to 277, 429 to 450, 517.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6003

Aboriginal rights - General - Protection of - Macfarlane, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal set out two questions to be answered in deciding whether protection was to be afforded to an alleged aboriginal practice and what, if any, remedy is to be provided - See paragraph 52.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005

Aboriginal rights - General - Nature of - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the nature of aboriginal rights - See paragraphs 53 to 70, 130, 364 to 424.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - General - Proof of - Macfarlane, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the requirements for proving aboriginal rights - See paragraphs 40 to 52.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6015

Aboriginal rights - General - Claim for - Aboriginal plaintiffs claimed ownership of and jurisdiction over, a large territory in British Columbia - The trial judge found the plaintiffs established, subject to the question of extinguishment, nonexclusive aboriginal sustenance gathering rights within some boundaries of the territory in an area not yet accurately defined - The judge found the law recognized not all activities, but those which were an integral part of and recognized by an aboriginal society prior to the assertion of sovereignty - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the trial judge applied the correct test to establish aboriginal rights and refused to substitute its view for that of the trial judge respecting the weight of the evidence - See paragraphs 132 to 150, 263, 284 to 290, 451 to 469, 519.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - General - Extinguishment - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the sovereign's intention must be clear and plain if it was to extinguish an aboriginal right - Express language such as "all aboriginal rights are hereby extinguished" was not required - The court held that in relation to traditional property rights, if the intention to disturb the rights was clear and plain, the presumptions against such a result would not apply - Such an intention may be declared expressly or manifested by unavoidable implication - The court held that there could only be extinguishment by necessary implication if the only possible interpretation of the statute was that aboriginal rights were intended to be extinguished - See paragraphs 203 to 222, 262, 279, 495, 516.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - General - Extinguishment - Aboriginal plaintiffs claimed ownership of and jurisdiction over, a large territory in British Columbia - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to non-exclusive sustenance gathering aboriginal rights within some boundaries of the territory in an area not yet accurately defined - These rights were those which were an integral part of and recognized by an aboriginal society prior to the assertion of sovereignty - The court, however, held that 13 colonial instruments enacted between 1858-70 did not give rise to the clear and plain implication that they were enacted with the intention of extinguishing aboriginal rights - See paragraphs 203 to 222, 262, 279, 495, 516.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6328

Government of Indians - Self-government - Claim for - Aboriginal plaintiffs claimed jurisdiction over the land and people in a large territory in British Columbia (an unextinguished right to control the lands and natural resources and to govern the territory and people (including those not parties to the litigation) by Indian laws, excluding the operation of provincial laws where such laws conflicted) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the claim must fail - The court agreed with the trial judge that aboriginal jurisdiction ended with the assertion of British sovereignty, with the imposition of English law in British Columbia in 1858 - The court agreed that aboriginal legislative power was inconsistent with the division of powers in the Constitution Act 1867 and with B.C.'s 1871 entry into Confederation - See paragraphs 151 to 175, 264, 280 to 283, 470 to 485, 518.

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of fact by a trial judge - Wallace, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the principles applicable to a review by the Court of Appeal of a trial judge's findings of fact - See paragraphs 325 to 362.

Cases Noticed:

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 127 N.R. 147; 46 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [paras. 41, 470].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313; [1973] 4 W.W.R. 1; 34 D.L.R.(3d) 145, refd to. [paras. 42, 357].

Mabo v. Queensland (1992), 107 A.L.R. 1, (H.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secretary), [1921] 2 A.C. 399 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 241; 25 F.T.R. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

Roberts v. Canada - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band.

Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. v. Paul et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 54].

Pasco v. Canadian National Railway (1989), 56 D.L.R.(4th) 404 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Twinn v. Canada, [1987] 2 F.C. 450; 6 F.T.R. 138 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), affing. 13 S.C.R. 577, refd to. [paras. 60, 395].

Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554; 47 N.R. 132, refd to. [para. 60].

Smith v. R. - see Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General) et al.

R. v. Kruger and Manuel, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495, refd to. [paras. 63, 393].

R. v. Taylor and Williams (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 227 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Baker Lake (Hamlet) v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, [1980] 1 F.C. 518; [1980] 5 W.W.R. 193; 107 D.L.R.(3d) 513; [1979] 3 C.N.L.R. 17 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 67].

Schreiber Brothers Ltd. v. Currie Products Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 78; 31 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 123].

Lewis v. Todd, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 694; 34 N.R. 1; 14 C.C.L.T. 294; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 123].

Taylor v. Ankenman and Jaegli Enterprises Ltd., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 4, refd to. [para. 123].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard and Registrar of Registration Division of Compton at Cookshire, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 123]

Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, [1886-1890] All E.R. Rep. 770; 12 App. Cas. 575, refd to. [para. 169].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1912] A.C. 571 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 169].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, Re., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 169].

Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act (Canada) - see Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, Re.

Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Que.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 169].

Reference Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution - see Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Que).

R. v. Sikyea (1964), 46 W.W.R.(N.S.) 65 (N.W.T.C.A.), affd. [1964] S.C.R. 642, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Symonds (1847), N.Z.P.C.C. 387, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15, refd to. [para. 183].

United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railway Co. (1941), 314 U.S. 339, refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 186].

Tilbury v. Silva (1890), 45 Ch.D. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188].

Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, [1933] S.C.R. 629, refd to. [para. 189].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hallett & Carey Ltd., [1952] A.C. 427 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Bartleman (1984), 12 D.L.R.(4th) 73; 55 B.C.L.R. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 230].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 231].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America and Ontario Labour Relations Board and Brant et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 242].

Natural Parents v. Superintendent of Child Welfare et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 751; 6 N.R. 491, refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 242].

Deere (John) Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 242].

John Deere Plow Co. - see Deere (John) Plow Co.

Commission du salaire Minimum v. Bell Telephone Co., [1966] S.C.R. 767, refd to. [para. 242].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 243].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Morin (K.M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 329].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 330].

Métivier v. Cadorette and Gourde, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 371; 8 N.R. 129, refd to. [para. 330].

Doerner, Doerner and Doerner v. Bliss & Laughlin Industries Inc. et al. and Northfield Metals Products Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 865; 34 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 331].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 332].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 337].

Banque de Montréal et autre v. Hydro-Québec et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 554; 138 N.R. 185; 48 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 338].

Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1988), 54 D.L.R.(4th) 43 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 346].

Woelk v. Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 232; 24 A.R. 620; [1981] 1 W.W.R. 289; 14 C.C.L.T. 181; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 349].

Sobhuza II v. Miller, [1926] A.C. 518 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 365].

Campbell v. Hall, [1774] All E.R. 52; 98 E.R. 1045; 1 Cowp. 204 (K.B.), refd to. [paras. 369, 526].

Freeman v. Fairlie (1828), 1 Moo. Ind. App. 305; 18 E.R. 117 (L.C.), refd to. [para. 369].

Lyons Corp. v. East Indian Co. (1836), 1 Moo. P.C.C. 175; 12 E.R. 782 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 369].

Cooper v. Stuart (1889), 14 App. Cas. 286 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 370, 526].

Sammut v. Strickland, [1938] A.C. 678; [1938] 3 All E.R. 693 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 371].

St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577, refd to. [para. 376].

Southern Rhodesia, Re, [1919] A.C. 211 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 396].

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, refd to. [para. 405].

Worcester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, refd to. [para. 405].

Eleko v. Nigeria Government (Administering Officer), [1931] A.C. 662; [1931] All E.R. 44 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 415].

Oshodi v. Balogun and Scottish Nigerian Mortgage and Trust Co., [1936] 2 All E.R. 1632 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 415].

Inasa v. Oshodi, [1934] A.C. 99 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 415].

Advocate-General of Bengal v. Surnomoye Dossee (Ranee) (1863), 9 Moo. Ind. App. 391; 15 E.R. 811 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 419].

Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'Ecole Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 504].

Manitoba Language Rights, Reference Re, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 504].

Cole v. Cole, [1943] 3 W.W.R. 532 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1944] S.C.R. 166, refd to. [para. 510].

Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Co. Rep. 1a; 77 E.R. 377, refd to. [para. 526].

Blankard v. Galdy (1693), 2 Salk 411; 91 E.R. 356, refd to. [para. 526].

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 574].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 574].

Kodellas and Tripolis Foods Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) (1989), 77 Sask.R. 94; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 574].

Marchand v. Simcoe County (Board of Education) (1986), 55 O.R.(2d) 638 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 574].

Marchand v. Simcoe County (Board of Education)(No. 2) (1987), 61 O.R.(2d) 651 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 574].

Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General)(No. 1) (1989), 59 D.L.R.(4th) 247 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 574].

Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General)(No. 2) (1989), 60 D.L.R.(4th) 445 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 574].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; [1932] All E.R. Rep. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 575].

Turtle Mountain Band v. United States (1974), 490 F.2d 935, refd to. [para. 611].

United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso (1975), 513 F.2d 1383, refd to. [para. 611].

Strong v. United States (1975), 518 F.2d 556, refd to. [para. 611].

London (City) v. Vanacre (1699), 12 Mod. Rep. 269; 88 E.R. 1314, refd to. [para. 678].

Hammerton v. Honey (1876), 24 W.R. 603, refd to. [para. 694].

New Windsor Corp. v. Mellor, [1975] 1 Ch. 380; [1975] 3 All E.R. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 694].

Columbia v. Peru, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266, refd to. [para. 697].

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Germany v. Denmark; Germany v. Netherlands), [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3, refd to. [para. 697].

Canada (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 388; 52 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 706].

Refernce Re Ownership of the Bed of the Strait of Georgia - see Canada (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 85 N.R. 3, refd to. [para. 713].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 745].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 745].

Cardinal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1974] S.C.R. 695, refd to. [para. 822].

Derrickson v. Derrickson et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; 65 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 830].

Bisaillion v. Keable and Attorney General of Quebec and Attorneys General of Canada, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 831].

Wyld v. Silver, [1963] Ch. 243; [1962] 3 All E.R. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 847].

Attorney General v. Merthyr Tydfil Union, [1900] 1 Ch. 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 866].

R. v. Bales (1970), 17 D.L.R.(3d) 641 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 866].

Hulton v. Hulton, [1916] 2 K.B. 642 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 867].

Loudon v. Ryder (No. 2), [1953] 1 Ch. 423; [1953] 1 All E.R. 1005, refd to. [para. 867].

Harrison-Broadley et al. v. Smith, [1964] 1 All E.R. 867 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 867].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 546; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 875].

Statutes Noticed:

British Columbia Act (1866), 29 & 30 Vict., c. 67, generally [para. 758].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 668].

Colonial Laws Validity Act (1865), 28 & 29 Vict., c. 63, generally [paras. 757, 1037].

Constitution Act, 1867, generally [paras. 168, 281, 812, 1005]; sect. 91 [paras. 168-169, 482]; sect. 91(24) [paras. 146, 170, 236-237, 240, 244, 812, 815, 830, 832, 856, 1036]; sect. 92 [paras. 28, 168-169, 482]; sect. 92(5) [paras. 236, 241]; sect. 92(13) [para. 241]; sect. 101 [para. 240]; sect. 109 [paras. 33, 236, 813]; sect. 129 [para. 236].

Constitution Act, 1982, generally [paras. 43, 999]; sect. 35 [paras. 144, 195, 256, 293, 310, 401, 413, 546, 576, 578, 668-669, 676, 690, 703, 719, 834, 838-840, 842, 858, 914, 968, 994, 1015-1016, 1057]; sect. 35(1) [paras. 50, 259, 263, 484, 576, 667]; sect. 35(3) [para. 578]; sect. 35(4) [para. 667].

Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 7, sect. 9 [para. 575].

Fur Trade, An Act for Regulating, 1821, generally [para. 920].

Imperial Act (1858), 21 & 22 Vict., c. 99, sect. 2 [para. 755].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, generally [paras. 175, 540, 821, 1016, 1045-1046]; sect. 88 [paras. 251-257, 269, 821-825, 827-829, 832-834, 857, 1135].

Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 224, sect. 2 [para. 374]; sect. 10 [para. 868].

Oregon Boundary Treaty, 1846, generally [paras. 44, 310, 372, 557, 706].

Royal Proclamation, 1763, generally [paras. 29, 42, 176-177, 486-487, 489, 491-492, 494, 520, 557, 565, 586-590, 599, 601, 685, 911, 1021-1031, 1033-1040, 1079, 1085, 1088, 1090].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 5(22) [para. 866].

Terms of Union (B.C.), 1871, generally [paras. 279, 310, 482, 1097].

Treaty 8 of 1898, generally [para. 806].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia Claims Task Force, Report of (1991), generally [para. 1132].

Burke, J., Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (10th Ed. 1977), generally [para. 77].

Canada, Royal Commission Report on the Affairs of the Indians in Canada (1844), generally [para. 1088].

Dicey, Law of the Constitution (10th Ed. 1959), pp. 39, 40 [para. 479]; 385 [para. 172].

Driedger, E.A., The Construction of Statutes (1974), pp. 63, 64 [para. 188].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1975), vol. 12, paras. 404 [para. 699]; 425 [para. 695].

Hohfeld: Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning (1917), Yale Law Journal, p. 710 [para. 384].

James, A., Sovereign Statehood (1986), pp. 3 ff., 203 to 209 [para. 479].

McNeil, Kent, Common Law Aboriginal Title (1989), generally [para. 700]; pp. 161, 162, 171 to 179 [para. 656]; 203, 204 [para. 446].

Slattery, Land Rights of Indigenous Canadian Peoples (1979), pp. 50 to 59 [para. 656].

Slattery, First Nations and the Constitution: A Question of Trust (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 261, p. 286 [para. 834].

Slattery, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, p. 738 [para. 658].

Counsel:

Stuart Rush, Q.C., Peter R. Grant, Louise Mandell, Michael A. Jackson, Murray Adams and David Paterson, for the appellants;

Marion R. Buller, Nancy H. Sandy, Stephen Point and R. Taylor, for supporting intervenor, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs;

Thomas Berger, Q.C., and Harry A. Slade, for supporting intervenor, Coast Salish Nation, Nuu-Chah Nulth Tribal Council, Ktunana-Kinbasket Tribal Council, Tsimpsean Tribal Council and Okanagan Indian Band;

Arthur Pape, for supporting intervenors, Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council;

Jack Woodward, for supporting intervenors, Massett Band and the Old Massett Village Council;

Peter W. Hutchins, Diane H. Soroka and Anjali Choksi (of the Quebec Bar), for supporting intervenors, National Indian Brotherhood/Assembly of First Nations;

David M. Rosenberg, Hugh M.G. Braker and Lewis F. Harvey, for party intervenors, N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., Harry Thomas Dick, William Alphonse and Allen Jacob Lewis;

Harry Slade, for party intervenors, Allen Frances Lewis and Jacob Kenneth Lewis;

Peter Grant, for party intervenor, Jerry Benjamin Nikal;

Louise Mandell and Leslie Pinder, for party intervenor, Dorothy Marie Van der Peet;

Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C., Peter T. Burns, Q.C., and Maria A. Morellato, for party intervenors, William and David Gladstone;

Bryan Williams, Q.C., Joseph Arvay, Q.C., Robert Taylor, Glen Bell, Meredith Quartermain, Jennifer Hocking and Sharon Lindgren, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia;

James Macaulay, Q.C., M. Marvyn Koenigsberg, Q.C., Loryl Russell and Murray Wolf, agents for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

J. Edward Gouge and Cecilia A. Low, for supporting intervenor, Alcan Aluminium Ltd.;

J. Keith Lowes and Paula S. Grahame, for supporting intervenors, The Mining Association of British Columbia, British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Coal Association of Canada, Mining Suppliers Contractors and Consultants Association of British Columbia, Council of Forest Industries, Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, Sports Fishing Institute of British Columbia, Fisheries Council of British Columbia, Pacific Fishermen's Alliance, Business Council of British Columbia, Northern Interior Lumber Sector of the Council of Forest Industries, Caribou Lumber Manufacturers Association, British Columbia Cattlemen's Association and British Columbia Chamber of Commerce;

Charles F. Willms, P. Geoffrey Plant and Thora A. Sigurdson, Amici Curiae.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 4-8, May 11-15, May 25-29, June 1-5, June 15-19, June 22-26; June 29, 30, and July 2-3, 1992, before Taggart, Lambert, Hutcheon, Macfarlane and Wallace, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on June 25, 1993, and the following opinions were filed:

Macfarlane J.A. (Taggart, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 301;

Wallace, J.A. - see paragraphs 302 to 522;

Lambert, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 523 to 1070;

Hutcheon, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 1071 to 1137.