R. v. Howard, (1994) 166 N.R. 282 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | May 12, 1994 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1994), 166 N.R. 282 (SCC);71 OAC 278;1994 CanLII 86 (SCC);[1994] 3 CNLR 146;18 OR (3d) 384;[1994] SCJ No 43 (QL);115 DLR (4th) 312;[1994] 2 SCR 299;90 CCC (3d) 131;166 NR 282 |
R. v. Howard (1994), 166 N.R. 282 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
George Henry Howard (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, United Indian Councils and Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (intervenors)
(22999)
Indexed As: R. v. Howard
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
May 12, 1994.
Summary:
The accused status Indian was convicted of unlawfully fishing off the reserve during a prohibited period. The trial judge ruled that the right to fish off the reserve was extinguished by a 1923 treaty. A summary conviction appeal court affirmed the conviction. The accused appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 55 O.A.C. 189, dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that the treaty was valid and clearly extinguished off reserve fishing rights. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Fish and Game - Topic 971
Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - Right to fish and regulation of Indian fishery - Off reserve - Statutory regulation of - The accused status Indian was convicted of unlawfully fishing off the reserve during a prohibited period - The trial judge ruled that the right to fish off the reserve was extinguished by a 1923 treaty - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the treaty was valid and clearly extinguished off reserve fishing rights - The court rejected submissions that the band representatives executing the treaty did not understand its terms, that the treaty was invalid because of the absence of an Order-in-Council by the federal government to ratify the treaty and that the Ontario Fishery Regulations conflicted with s. 35 of the Constitution Act - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the 1923 treaty was valid and extinguished the right to fish off the reserve.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 9].
Eastmain Band v. Robinson et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 501; 145 N.R. 270 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 127 N.R. 147; 46 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 10].
Gooderham and Worts Ltd. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1947] A.C. 66 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].
Statutes Noticed:
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(1) [para. 1].
Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, generally [para. 1].
Fisheries Act Regulations (Can.), Ontario Fishery Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 849, sect. 5(1)(b) [para. 1].
Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1906, c. 104, generally [para. 11].
Ontario Fishery Regulations - see Fisheries Act Regulations (Can.).
Counsel:
William B. Henderson and Alan D. Pratt, for the appellant;
J.T.S. McCabe, Q.C., for the respondent;
John B. Edmond, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Thomas R. Berger, Q.C., for the United Indian Councils;
Timothy S.B. Danson and Stephen Reich, for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
Solicitors of Record:
Lang, Michener, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada;
Berger & Nelson, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the United Indian Councils;
Danson, Recht & Freedman, Toronto, Ontario, for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
This appeal was heard on February 22, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On May 12, 1994, Gonthier, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.,
...Robinson et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 501; 147 N.R. 76; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 16; [1993] 3 C.N.L.R. 55 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 527]. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 166 N.R. 282; 71 O.A.C. 278, refd to. [para. Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 2......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses et al., (2010) 401 N.R. 246 (SCC)
...[para. 99]. R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 107]. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 166 N.R. 282; 71 O.A.C. 278, refd to. [para. R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 121]. R. ......
-
Table of Cases
...459 R. v. Henry, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609, 2005 SCC 76 .................................................. 425 R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299, 115 D.L.R. (4th) 312, 166 N.R. 282 ............490 R. v. Hydro-Quebec, et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 32, 217 N.R. 241 .......................
-
Table of Cases
...274 R. v. Henry, 2005 SCC 76 ................................................................................... 427 R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299, 115 D.L.R. (4th) 312, 166 N.R. 282 ............ 491 R. v. Hydro-Quebec, et. al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 32, 217 N.R. 241 .........
-
Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.,
...Robinson et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 501; 147 N.R. 76; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 16; [1993] 3 C.N.L.R. 55 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 527]. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 166 N.R. 282; 71 O.A.C. 278, refd to. [para. Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 2......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses et al., (2010) 401 N.R. 246 (SCC)
...[para. 99]. R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 107]. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 166 N.R. 282; 71 O.A.C. 278, refd to. [para. R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 121]. R. ......
-
R. v. C.E., (2009) 279 N.S.R.(2d) 391 (CA)
...to. [para. 30]. R. v. Clark (D.M.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 6; 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 166 N.R. 282; 71 O.A.C. 278, refd to. [para. R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [p......
-
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Alderville Indian Band et al., (2014) 461 N.R. 327 (FCA)
...refd to. [para. 34]. South Yukon Forest Corp. et al. v. Canada (2012), 431 N.R. 286; 2012 FCA 165, refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 166 N.R. 282; 71 O.A.C. 278, refd to. [para. R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to.......
-
Table of Cases
...459 R. v. Henry, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609, 2005 SCC 76 .................................................. 425 R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299, 115 D.L.R. (4th) 312, 166 N.R. 282 ............490 R. v. Hydro-Quebec, et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 32, 217 N.R. 241 .......................
-
SO YOU WANT TO IMPLEMENT UNDRIP.
...324 [Badger]: Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69 [Mikisew 2005] (Treaty 8); R v Howard, [1994] 2 SCR 299, 115 DLR (4th) 312 (Williams Treaties). In none of these decisions did a treaty's contents affect its validity. Current practice is to confir......
-
Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian Constitution
...into an agreement with First 73 See Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation , [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570 and R. v. Howard , [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299. 74 See, for example, Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission) , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585 at para. 12, Bastarache J., holding that the......
-
Respect for treaty rights in Ontario: the law of the land?
...to this phenomenon was the negotiation of the 1923 Williams Treaty, involving the Chippewas and Mississaugas. In R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299, 115 D.L.R. (4th) 312, the Supreme Court upheld a trial ruling that in this treaty, the Aboriginal negotiators clearly understood that they were......