R. v. Derriksan, (1976) 16 N.R. 231 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 19, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1976), 16 N.R. 231 (SCC);71 DLR (3d) 159;[1976] 6 WWR 480;16 NR 231;1976 CanLII 1270 (SCC);31 CCC (2d) 575

R. v. Derriksan (1976), 16 N.R. 231 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Derriksan

Indexed As: R. v. Derriksan

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

October 19, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of fishing salmon contrary to regulations made under the federal Fisheries Act. The accused was an Okanagan Indian and he alleged that he had a right to hunt for food in traditional fishing grounds in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. The trial judge convicted the accused - See paragraphs 46 to 56.

On appeal by way of stated case to the British Columbia Supreme Court the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the accused was affirmed - See paragraphs 13 to 45.

On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the accused was affirmed - See paragraphs 2 to 12.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the accused was affirmed - See paragraph 1. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that assuming the accused had an aboriginal right to fish, that such a right was subject to regulations imposed by validly enacted federal laws.

See also R. v. Kruger, 15 N.R. 495 at paragraph 14.

Fish and Game - Topic 924

Indian and Eskimo rights - Hunting by Indians on aboriginal title lands - The accused, an Okanagan Indian, was charged with fishing offences under the federal Fisheries Act Regulations - The accused fished for kokanee salmon in traditional fishing grounds for Indians in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia - The accused alleged that he had a right to fish for food in traditional fishing grounds and was not subject to federal regulatory laws - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction of the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that assuming the accused had an aboriginal right to fish, that such a right was subject to regulations imposed by validly enacted federal laws.

Cases Noticed:

Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia (1970), 74 W.W.R. 481; 13 D.L.R.(3d) 64; [1973] S.C.R. 313; [1973] 4 W.W.R. 1; 34 D.L.R.(3d) 146; (1970), 71 W.W.R. 81; 8 D.L.R.(3d) 59, folld. [paras. 5, 21 and 52].

R. v. Sikyea (1964), 46 W.W.R. 65, folld. [para. 7].

R. v. George, [1966] S.C.R. 267, folld. [para. 10].

R. v. Francis (1969), 10 D.L.R.(3d) 189, folld. [paras. 11 and 54].

R. v. White and Bob (1965), 52 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [paras. 20 and 53].

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S. (1955), 348 U.S. 272, refd to. [para. 35].

Oyekan v. Adele, [1957] 2 All E.R. 785, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Discon and Baker (1968), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 619, folld. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Fisheries Act Regulations (Can.), S.O.R. Con. 1955, vol. 2, page 1627.

Royal Proclamation 1873, R.S.C. 1970, Appendices, page 123 [paras. 8 and 20 to 22].

Counsel:

Douglas Sanders, for the appellant;

Charles C. Locke, Q.C., Norman J. Prelypchan, for the respondent;

G.W. Ainslie, Q.C., for Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ. at Ottawa, Ontario on October 19, 1976. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered orally on October 19, 1976 by LASKIN, C.J.C.