Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, (2001) 269 N.R. 207 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJune 16, 2000
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2001), 269 N.R. 207 (SCC);2001 SCC 33;83 CRR (2d) 1;EYB 2001-24177;[2001] SCJ No 33 (QL);[2001] ACS no 33;[2001] 1 SCR 911;206 FTR 160;JE 2001-1066;199 DLR (4th) 385;269 NR 207;[2001] 3 CNLR 122;105 ACWS (3d) 361;[2002] 3 CTC 359

Mitchell v. MNR (2001), 269 N.R. 207 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. MY.040

Minister of National Revenue (appellant) v. Grand Chief Michael Mitchell also known as Kanentakeron (respondent) and The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General for New Brunswick, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, The Assembly of First Nations and The Union of New Brunswick Indians (interveners)

(27066; 2001 SCC 33)

Indexed As: Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

May 24, 2001.

Summary:

Grand Chief Mitchell, a Mohawk from Akwesasne, crossed the Canada-United States boarder with goods purchased in the United States. He claimed an aboriginal and treaty right to bring goods across the Canada-United States border without having to pay duties or taxes. The goods included goods for personal use and community use and goods for trade with other First Nations. The Chief applied for declarations that such an aboriginal and treaty right existed. He also sought a declaration that the provisions of the Customs Act that were inconsistent with the aboriginal and treaty right were of no force and effect.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 134 F.T.R. 1, held that the Mohawks of Akwesasne had an aboriginal right to bring goods for personal use, community use and non-commercial scale trade with other First Nations across the border without having to pay duties or taxes. The court held that the right was not expressed in a treaty within the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The court declared that the provisions of the Customs Act that were inconsistent with the Mohawks' aboriginal right were, to that extent, of no force or effect. The Crown appealed. The Chief cross-appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Létourneau, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision report­ed at 233 N.R. 129, allowed the appeal in part. The court dismissed the cross-appeal. The Minister appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The Chief failed to establish the aboriginal right and was required to pay duty on the goods.

Evidence - Topic 2

General and definitions - Rules of evi­dence - Application of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The flexible adaptation of traditional rules of evidence to the challenge of doing justice in aborig­inal claims is but an application of the time-honoured principle that the rules of evi­dence are not 'cast in stone, nor are they enacted in a vacuum' ... Rather, they are animated by broad, flexible principles, applied purposively to promote truth-find­ing and fairness. The rules of evidence should facilitate justice, not stand in its way. Underlying the diverse rules on the admissibility of evidence are three simple ideas. First, the evidence must be useful in the sense of tending to prove a fact rel­evant to the issues in the case. Second, the evidence must be reasonably reliable; unreliable evidence may hinder the search for the truth more than help it. Third, even useful and reasonably reliable evidence may be excluded in the discretion of the trial judge if its probative value is over­shadowed by its potential for prejudice." - See paragraph 30.

Evidence - Topic 1021

Relevant facts, relevance and materiality - Admissibility - General - [See Evidence - Topic 2 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6001

Aboriginal rights - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "European settlement did not terminate the interests of aboriginal peoples arising from their his­torical occupation and use of the land. To the contrary, aboriginal interests and cus­tomary laws were presumed to survive the assertion of sovereignty, and were absorbed into the common law as rights, unless (1) they were incompatible with the Crown's assertion of sovereignty, (2) they were surrendered voluntarily via the treaty process, or (3) the government extin­guished them ..." - See paragraph 10.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005

Aboriginal rights - General - Nature and scope of - The Grand Chief of the Mohawks of Akwesasne claimed an abo­riginal right to bring goods across the St. Lawrence River for the purposes of trade -The trial judge held that the Chief pos­sessed an aboriginal right to pass and repass freely across what was now the Canada-United States boarder (i.e., the St. Lawrence River) including the right to bring goods into Canada for personal and community use without having to pay duties on those goods - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred - The evidence failed to establish an ancestral practice of transporting goods across the St. Lawrence River for the purposes of trade - Further, the evidence did not establish that the trade across the St. Lawrence River was integral to the Mohawk culture - Therefore, the Chief was required to pay duty on goods brought into Canada - See paragraphs 41 to 60.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005

Aboriginal rights - General - Nature and scope of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "An aboriginal right, once es­tablished, generally encompasses other rights necessary to its meaningful exer­cise." - See paragraph 22.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - General - Proof of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the test for establishing an aboriginal right focuses on identifying the integral, defin­ing features of those societies. Stripped to essentials, an aboriginal claimant must prove a modern practice, tradition or cus­tom that has a reasonable degree of conti­nuity with the practices, traditions or cus­toms that existed prior to contact. The practice, custom or tradition must have been 'integral to the distinctive culture' of the aboriginal peoples, in the sense that it distinguished or characterized their tradi­tional culture and lay at the core of the peoples' identity. It must be a 'defining feature' of the aboriginal society, such that the culture would be 'fundamentally al­tered' without it. It must be a feature of 'central significance' to the peoples' cul­ture, one that 'truly made the society what it was '... This excludes practices, traditions and customs that are only marginal or incidental to the aboriginal society's cul­tural identity, and emphasizes practices, traditions and customs that are vital to the life, culture and identity of the aboriginal society in question. Once an aboriginal right is established, the issue is whether the act which gave rise to the case at bar is an expression of that right. Aboriginal rights are not frozen in their pre-contact form: ancestral rights may find modern expres­sion. The question is whether the impugned act represents the modern exer­cise of an ancestral practice, custom or tradition." - See paragraphs 12 and 13.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - General - Proof of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The requirement that courts interpret and weigh evidence [in aboriginal rights claims] with a consciousness of the special nature of aboriginal claims is critical to the meaningful protection of s. 35(1) rights" - However, "a consciousness of the special nature of aboriginal claims does not negate the operation of general evidentiary prin­ciples. ... [Aboriginal claims] must still be established on the basis of persuasive evidence demonstrating their validity on the balance of probabilities ... While the evidence presented by aboriginal claimants should not be undervalued 'simply because that evidence does not conform precisely with the evidentiary standards that would be applied in, for example, a private law torts case' ... neither should it be artificial­ly strained to carry more weight than it can reasonably support." - See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - General - Proof of - [See Evidence - Topic 2 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2

Aboriginal rights - General - Sovereign incompatibility - The Grand Chief of the Mohawks of Akwesasne claimed an abo­riginal right to bring goods across the St. Lawrence River (i.e., what is now the Canada-United States boarder) for the purposes of trade - The Crown argued, inter alia, that s. 35(1) of the Constitu­tion Act, 1982, only protected aboriginal rights that were compatible with the his­torical and modern exercise of Crown sovereignty - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the aboriginal right claimed was not estab­lished on the evi­dence - The majority held that it was unnecessary to deal with the issue of "sov­ereign incompatibility" - See paragraphs 61 to 64 - Binnie, J. (Major, J., concur­ring), opined that "sovereign incom­patibil­ity continues to be an element in the s. 35(1) analysis, albeit a limitation that will be sparingly applied" - Binnie, J., held that the Chief's claim of a trading and mobility right across an international boundary based on his citizenship in the Mohawk nation was incompatible with the historical attributes of Canadian sover­eign­ty - The right did not survive the transi­tion to non-Mohawk sovereignty and, therefore, there was no existing right to be protected by s. 35(1) - See paragraphs 66 to 173.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6026

Aboriginal rights - Particular rights - Trade - [See first Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005 and Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6506

Taxation - Customs duties - [See first Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 24l; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [paras. 9, 71].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [paras. 9, 146].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [paras. 10, 67].

Nishga Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Attorney General) - see Calder v. Brit­ish Columbia (Attorney General).

Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) (1992), 175 C.L.R. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 10, 147].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 11, 133].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 200 N.R. 189; 79 B.C.A.C. 161; 129 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 11, 72].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, folld. [paras. 12, 72].

R. v. Pamajewon (H.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821; 199 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 15, 126].

Watt v. Liebelt and Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 F.C. 455; 236 N.R. 302 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 170].

R. v. Campbell (N.E.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 465; 6 Imm. L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161Z, refd to. [paras. 22, 107].

R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89, refd to. [paras. 23, 72].

R. v. Nikal (J.B.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; 196 N.R. 1; 74 B.C.A.C. 161; 121 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 23, 138].

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. 27].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 325; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; 246 N.R. 83; 178 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 549 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 39, 138].

R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 673; 200 N.R. 321; 80 B.C.A.C. 269; 130 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [paras. 56, 72].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 470 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 62, 141].

Inasa v. Oshodi, [1934] A.C. 99 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Jacobs, [1999] 3 C.N.L.R. 239 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

United States of America v. Garrow (1938), 88 F.2d 318 (C.C.P.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Cain, [1906] A.C. 542 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 108].

Worcester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S.(6 Pet.) 515 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 112].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41; 83 D.T.C. 5041; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 133].

Natural Parents v. Superintendent of Child Welfare (B.C.) et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 751; 6 N.R. 491, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 133].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1912] A.C. 571 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 134].

Campbell et al. v. British Columbia (At­torney General) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 528; 79 B.C.L.R.(3d) 122 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 134].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 1, varying [1997] 1 F.C. 689; 206 N.R. 85 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Taylor (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 227 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

Campbell v. Hall (1774), 1 Cowp. 204; 98 E.R. 1045 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 141].

Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secre­tary), [1921] 2 A.C. 399 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

Adeyinka Oyekan v. Musendiku Adele, [1957] 2 All E.R. 785 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

Wik Peoples v. Queensland (1996), 187 C.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Eninew; R. v. Bear (1984), 32 Sask.R. 237; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Hare and Debassige (1985), 9 O.A.C. 161; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 160].

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States of America (1973), 413 U.S. 266, refd to. [para. 160].

United States of America v. Ramsey (1977), 431 U.S. 606, refd to. [para. 160].

Chue Chan Ping v. United States of America (1889), 130 U.S. 581 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 162].

Ekiu v. United States of America (1892), 142 U.S. 651 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 162].

Fong Yu Ting v. United States of America (1893), 149 U.S. 698, refd to. [para. 162].

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), 30 U.S.(5 Pet.) 1, refd to. [para. 165].

United States of America v. Wheeler (1978), 435 U.S. 313 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 166].

Akins v. United States of America (1977), 551 F.2d 1222 (C.C.P.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, refd to. [para. 169].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barsh, Russel L., and Henderson, James Y., The Supreme Court's Van der Peet Trilogy: Naive Imperialism and Ropes of Sand (1997), 42 McGill L.J. 993, p. 1000 [para. 32].

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th Ed. 1770), Book I, pp. 106 [para. 141]; 259 [para. 163].

Borrows, John, The Trickster: Integral to a Distinctive Culture (1997), 8 Const. Forum 27, generally [para. 32].

Borrows, John, Uncertain Citizens: Abo­riginal Peoples and the Supreme Court (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. (Sp. Ed.) 15, pp. 34 [para. 134]; 40 [para. 164].

Canada, House of Commons, Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, Indian Self-Government in Canada: Report of the Special Committee (1984), generally [para. 128].

Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Partners in Confederation: Abo­riginal Peoples, Self-Government and the Constitution (1993), pp. 23 [para. 150]; 41 [para. 134].

Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report of the Royal Commis­sion on Aboriginal Peoples (1996), vol. 2, pp. 2 [para. 167]; 24 [para. 129]; 166 [para. 134]; 214 [para. 134]; 216 [para. 134]; 240, 241 [para. 130].

Greschner, Donna, Aboriginal Women, The Constitution and Criminal Justice, [1992] U.B.C.L. Rev. (Sp. Ed.) 338, p. 342 [paras. 134, 164].

Historical Atlas of Canada, generally [para. 48].

Hogg, Peter W., and Turpel, Mary Ellen, Implementing Aboriginal Self-Govern­ment: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues (1995), 74 Can. Bar Rev. 187, p. 192 [para. 134].

Kymlicka, Will, and Norman, Wayne, A Citizenship in Diverse Societies (2000), p. 39 [para. 164].

Mitchell, Michael, An Unbroken Assertion of Sovereignty, in Richardson, B., Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country (1980), pp. 107 [para. 117]; 109, 110 [para. 127]; 130 [para. 93]; 135 [paras. 117, 131].

Nicholson, Norman L., The Boundaries of the Canadian Confederation (1979), pp. 8, 9 [para. 159]; 19 [para. 156].

Richardson, B., Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country (1980), p. 130 [para. 93].

Richter, Daniel K., The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Coloniz­ation (1992), pp. 28 [paras. 43, 44]; 29 [paras. 44, 45].

Ritchie, William A., The Archaeology of New York State (Rev. Ed. 1980), p. 196 [para. 47].

Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, generally [para. 10]; p. 738 [para. 141].

Slattery, Brian, Making Sense of Aborig­inal and Treaty Rights (2000), 79 Can. Bar Rev. (Sp. Ed.) 196, p. 201 [para. 142].

Sopinka, John, and Lederman, Sidney N., The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases (1974), p. 524 [paras. 36, 38].

Story, Joseph, Commentaries of the Con­stitution of the United States (4th Ed. 1873), vol. 2, pp. 463, 464 [para. 159].

Vattel, Emer de, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1834), Book II, pp. 169, 170 [para. 163].

Woodward, Jack, Native Law (1994), (2000 Looseleaf Update) (Release 2), pp. 75 [para. 63]; 137 [para. 32].

Counsel:

Graham Garton, Q.C., and Sandra Phillips, for the appellant;

Peter W. Hutchins, Anjali Choksi, Micha J. Menczer and Paul Williams, for the respondent;

René Morin, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Quebec;

Gabriel Bourgeois, for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Kenneth J. Tyler and Robert J.C. Deane, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Timothy Leadem and Kathryn Kickbush, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Murray Marshall and François Dandon­neau, for the intervener, the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake;

Jack R. London, Q.C., and Martin S. Minuk, for the intervener, the Assembly of First Nations;

Henry J. Bear, for the intervener, the Union of New Brunswick Indians.

Solicitors of Record:

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Hutchins, Soroka & Dionne, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Que­bec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Solicitor General for the Province of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Borden Ladner Gervais, Vancouver, Brit­ish Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Mohawk Council of Kahnawake Legal Services, Kahnawake, Quebec, for the intervener, the Mohawk Council of Kah­nawake;

Pitblado Buchwald Asper, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Assem­bly of First Nations;

Bear Law Office, Maliseet, New Bruns­wick, for the intervener, the Union of New Brunswick Indians.

This appeal was heard on June 16, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 24, 2001, including the following opinions:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 65;

Binnie, J. (Major, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 66 to 174.

To continue reading

Request your trial
288 practice notes
  • R.T. et al., Re, 2004 SKQB 503
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • December 10, 2004
    ...[para. 53]. R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 53]. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207; 2001 SCC 33, refd to. [para. R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, re......
  • Kelly et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1220
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • February 26, 2013
    ..., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; R. v. Marshall , [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; Mitchell v. M.N.R. , 2001 SCC 33; R. v. Powley , 2003 SCC 43; R. v. Marshall; 2005 SCC 43; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage ), 2005 SCC 69; R.......
  • Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation et al. v. Beckman et al., (2010) 408 N.R. 281 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • November 12, 2009
    ...v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 105]. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207; 2001 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 105]. R. v. White and Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R.(2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), affd. (1965), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 481......
  • Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, (2002) 297 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 6, 2001
    ...to. [para. 75]. Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, refd to. [para. 75]. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207, refd to. [para. R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 78]. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
199 cases
  • R.T. et al., Re, 2004 SKQB 503
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • December 10, 2004
    ...[para. 53]. R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 53]. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207; 2001 SCC 33, refd to. [para. R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, re......
  • Kelly et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1220
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • February 26, 2013
    ..., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; R. v. Marshall , [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; Mitchell v. M.N.R. , 2001 SCC 33; R. v. Powley , 2003 SCC 43; R. v. Marshall; 2005 SCC 43; Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage ), 2005 SCC 69; R.......
  • Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation et al. v. Beckman et al., (2010) 408 N.R. 281 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 12, 2009
    ...v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 105]. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207; 2001 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 105]. R. v. White and Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R.(2d) 613 (B.C.C.A.), affd. (1965), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 481......
  • Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, (2002) 297 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 6, 2001
    ...to. [para. 75]. Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, refd to. [para. 75]. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207, refd to. [para. R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 78]. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 1-5, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 10, 2021
    ...Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53, Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14, Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, Canada v. South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, 431 N.R. 286, Lac La Ronge Indian Band v. Canada, 2001 SKCA 109, 206 D.L.R. (4th) 638......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 28 ' September 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 5, 2023
    ...1 S.C.R. 3, R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013, Commonwealth of Australia v. Yarmirr, [2001] HCA 56, 184 A.L.R. 113, Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, Regina v. Meyers, [1853] O.J. No. 204 (U.C. Ct. Com. Pl.), Keewatin Power Co. v. Kenora (Town) (1908), 16 O.L.R. 184 (C.A.), Caldwell v. McLar......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 1-5, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 10, 2021
    ...Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53, Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14, Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, Canada v. South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, 431 N.R. 286, Lac La Ronge Indian Band v. Canada, 2001 SKCA 109, 206 D.L.R. (4th) 638......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (August 28 – September 1)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • September 3, 2023
    ...1 S.C.R. 3, R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013, Commonwealth of Australia v. Yarmirr, [2001] HCA 56, 184 A.L.R. 113, Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, Regina v. Meyers, [1853] O.J. No. 204 (U.C. Ct. Com. Pl.), Keewatin Power Co. v. Kenora (Town) (1908), 16 O.L.R. 184 (C.A.), Caldwell v. McLar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
75 books & journal articles
  • The International Constitution
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Constitutional Labour Rights in Canada. Farm Workers and the Fraser Case
    • June 17, 2012
    ...a basis for a reversal of constitutional precedent. In 1991, the Court rendered reasons in Kindler v 31 Suresh, ibid. 32 Mitchell v MNR, [2001] 1 SCR 911. 33 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (18 September 1995). 34 Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Mi......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures 2017
    • June 24, 2021
    ...US 436 (1966) ......................................................................52 Mitchell v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2001 SCC 33 .............. 385, 619 Morton v British Columbia (Minister of Agriculture and Lands), 2010 BCSC 100 ...............................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Transnational and Cross-Border Criminal Law. Canadian Perspectives Part VI. Inter-State Cooperation and Enforcement
    • September 12, 2023
    ...525, 528, 540 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Afairs v Singh, [2002] HCA 7 ...... 103, 108 Mitchell v MNR, 2001 SCC 33 ............................................................................ 219, 223 Mladić (MICT-13-56-A), Appeals Chamber Judgment, 8 June 2021 ....................
  • Sources of International Law
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books International Law, Doctrine, Practice, and Theory - Third edition Part I
    • September 1, 2022
    ...without success, to give domestic efect to the Jay Treaty’s provisions. See, for example, Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue , 2001 SCC 33; Mitchell v Canada , Report No 61/08, Case 12.435 in [2008] Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at c III.C.5, OAS Doc OE......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT