R. v. Sparrow, (1990) 111 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 31, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 111 N.R. 241 (SCC);111 NR 241;1990 CanLII 104 (SCC);[1991] 1 SCR 291;70 DLR (4th) 385;AZ-90111047;46 BCLR (2d) 1;[1990] 4 WWR 410;[1991] 1 SCR 285;1990 CanLII 21 (SCC);62 CCC (3d) 190;JE 90-851;[1990] SCJ No 49 (QL);[1990] 1 SCR 1075;[1990] ACS no 49;61 CCC (3d) 574;10 WCB (2d) 194;1990 CanLII 20 (SCC);56 CCC (3d) 263;[1990] 3 CNLR 160

R. v. Sparrow (1990), 111 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Ronald Edward Sparrow (appellant) v. R. and The National Indian Brotherhood/The Assembly of First Nations, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Steelhead Society of British Columbia, the Pacific Fishermen's Defence Alliance, Northern Trollers' Association, the Pacific Gillnetters' Association, the Gulf Trollers' Association, the Pacific Trollers' Association, the Prince Rupert Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia, the Pacific Coast Fishing Vessel Owners' Guild, the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association, the Co-op Fishermen's Guild, Deep Sea Trawlers' Association of B.C., the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, the Attorney General for Alberta and the Attorney General of Newfoundland (interveners)

Indexed As: R. v. Sparrow

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

May 31, 1990.

Summary:

The Musqueam Indian Band in Vancouver had a federal Indian food fishing licence authorizing it to fish with a 25 fathom drift net. The accused member of the Musqueam Band was caught using a 45 fathom net and was charged with fishing with too long a net contrary to the licence. He was convicted in the British Columbia Provincial Court and his appeal was dismissed by the British Columbia County Court in a judgment reported [1986] B.C.W.L.B. 599. He appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported [1987] 2 W.W.R. 577; 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 300; 36 D.L.R.(4th) 246, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground that the courts below erroneously ruled that the accused could not rely on an aboriginal right to fish. The accused appealed on the ground that the right to fish should not be restricted to food purposes and the Crown cross-appealed on the ground that the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the aboriginal right to fish was not extinguished.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the order for a new trial. The Court explained the effect of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and set out the principles to be applied on the new trial. The Court held basically that, where there was an existing aboriginal right in the Musqueam Band to fish for food and social and ceremonial purposes, the right was constitutionally protected. However, it might be regulated, provided that the regulation could be justified as a legitimate regulation of the right, such as, a regulation for conservation and management of the fish resource.

Fish and Game - Topic 963

Indian and Inuit rights - Right to fish and regulation of the Indian fishery - Effect of Constitution Act - The Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1), stated that "the existing aboriginal rights of the aboriginal peoples are recognized and affirmed" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where there was an existing aboriginal right in a tribe of Indians to fish for food and social and ceremonial purposes, the right was constitutionally protected, but might be regulated, provided that the regulation was justified as a legitimate regulation of the right, such as, a regulation for conservation and management of the fish resource.

Fish and Game - Topic 963

Indian and Inuit rights - Right to fish and regulation of Indian fishery - Effect of Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where an Indian Band's right to fish for food and social and ceremonial purposes has been historically proved, the Band must prove that any federal regulation of its fishery interfered with its right - If so, there is a prima facie infringement of s. 35(1) and the test of justification must be applied to determine whether the regulation is justified, requiring the questions whether there is a valid legislative objective (e.g. conservation) and whether the federal government is discharging its fiduciary duty to Indians - The upshot is that an existing Indian fishing right prevails over all but conservation and management requirements.

Fish and Game - Topic 963

Indian and Inuit rights - Right to fish and regulation of the Indian fishery - Effect of Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1), which stated that "the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples are recognized and affirmed" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 35(1) should be given a generous and liberal interpretation and imposed on the federal government a responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity respecting the aboriginal people - Consequently, the federal power over Indians (Constitution Act, 1967, s. 91(24)) and over fisheries (s. 91(12)) must be reconciled with the federal fiduciary duty under s. 35(1) - Achievement of that reconciliation demands justification of any federal regulation that infringes upon or denies aboriginal rights - See paragraphs 46 to 66.

Fish and Game - Topic 963

Indian and Inuit rights - Right to fish and regulation of Indian fishery - Effect of Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) - Existing - Meaning of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word "existing" in the phrase "existing aboriginal and treaty rights" means "unextinguished" and not "exercisable at a certain time"; that is, there must be no frozen rights and "existing aboriginal rights" must be interpreted flexibly to permit their evolution over time - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Fish and Game - Topic 963

Indian and Inuit rights - Effect of Constitution Act - Existing right - Extinguishment - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where there existed a centuries old right of an Indian Band to fish, federal regulation of the Band's fishery over the decades did not extinguish the right - The court stated that an intention to extinguish such a right must be clear and plain - See paragraphs 32 to 39.

Fish and Game - Topic 964

Indian and Inuit rights - Right to fish and regulation of Indian fishery - Effect of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the constitutional protection of existing aboriginal fishing rights under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, was not subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter, but that a law or regulation affecting aboriginal rights would not automatically be ineffective - See paragraph 61.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 505

Rights - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) - Effect of - [See Fish and Game - Topic 964].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 506

Rights - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) - Interpretation - [See all Fish and Game - Topics 963].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Derrikson (1976), 16 N.R. 231; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 159 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 4].

Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 481 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1973] S.C.R. 313, consd. [paras. 4, 35, 49, 50].

R. v. Eninew (1983), 28 Sask.R. 168; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 443, affd. (1984), 32 Sask.R. 237; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 365 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 23, 80].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Bear Island Foundation (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 353 (H.C.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Hare and Debassige (1985), 9 O.A.C. 161; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 23, 80].

R. v. Steinhauer (1985), 63 A.R. 381; 15 C.R.R. 175 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Martin (1985), 65 N.B.R.(2d) 21; 167 A.P.R. 21; 17 C.R.R. 375 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Agawa (1988), 28 O.A.C. 201, appld. [paras. 23, 24, 58].

R. v. Jack, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 294; 28 N.R. 162, consd. [paras. 33, 76].

R. v. St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), consd. [para. 35].

Baker Lake (Hamlet) v. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, [1980] 1 F.C. 518 (T.D.), consd. [para. 35].

Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for Ontario, [1898] A.C. 700, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Wesley, [1932] 2 W.W.R. 337, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Prince and Myron, [1964] S.C.R. 81, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Sutherland, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451; 35 N.R. 361, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15, consd. [para. 42].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 49].

Pasco v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1986] 1 C.N.L.R. 35, consd. [para. 49].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, appld. [paras. 52, 59].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, consd. [para. 56].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Revenue, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, appld. [para. 57].

R. v. Taylor and Williams (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 360, appld. [para. 59].

R. v. Kruger, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495, consd. [para. 73].

R. v. Denney et al. (1990), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 253; 247 A.P.R. 253, apprvd. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations - see Fisheries Act.

British Columbia Terms of Union, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 10, art. 13.

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(12) [paras. 36, 47]; sect. 9(24) [para. 47]; sect. 109 [para. 36].

Constitution Act, 1930.

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 33 [para. 47]; sect. 35(1) [para. 1]; sect. 52(1) [para. 61].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, sect. 34 [para. 16]; sect. 61(1) [para. 16].

Fisheries Act, British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/84284, sect. 4 [para. 17]; sect. 12(1), sect. 12(2) [para. 19].

Royal Proclamation of 1763, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1 [para. 49].

Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1912, S.C. 1912, c. 45 [para. 50].

Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1966, c. 55 [para. 73].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin and Ratushney, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 730 [para. 53].

Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, In All Fairness: A Native Claims Policy - Comprehensive Claims (Ottawa 1981) [para. 52].

Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy (Ottawa 1969).

Chrétien, Jean (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), Claims of Indian and Inuit People (1973)(Statement) [para. 51].

Clement, W.H.P., The Law of the Canadian Constitution (3rd Ed. 1916) [para. 50].

Little Bear, Leroy., A Concept of Native Title, [1982] 5 Can. Legal Aid Bul. 99 [para. 68].

Lyon, Noel, An Essay on Constitutional Interpretation (1988), 26 Osgoode Hall L.J. 95 [paras. 54, 60].

McNeil, Kent, The Constitutional Rights of the Aboriginal People of Canada (1982), 4 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 218 [para. 24].

Pentney, William, The Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada in the Constitution Act, 1982, Part II, Section 35: The Substantive Guarantee (1987), 22 U.B.C. L. Rev. 207 [paras. 24, 60].

Sanders, Douglas, Pre-existing Rights: The Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, in Gérald A. Beaudoin and Ed Ratushny, eds., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989) [para. 53].

Schwartz, Bryan, First Principles, Second Thoughts. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy (1986) [para. 60].

Slattery, Brian, The Hidden Constitution: Aboriginal Rights in Canada (1984), 32 Am. J. of Comp. Law 361 [para. 60].

Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727 [paras. 24, 27, 52, 60, 63].

Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy (1969) [para. 50].

Counsel:

Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C., Lewis F. Harvey and Joanne Lysyk, for the appellant;

Thomas R. Braidwood, Q.C., and James E. Dorsey, for the respondent Crown;

Harry A. Slade, Arthur Pape and Louise Mandell, for the intervener the National Indian Brotherhood/the Assembly of First Nations;

Christopher Harvey, for the interveners the B.C. Wildlife Federation et al.;

J. Keith Lowes, for the intervener the Fisheries Council of British Columbia;

Ian Donald, Q.C., for the intervener the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union;

J.T.S. McCabe, Q.C., and Michel Hélie, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

René Morin and Robert Décary, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Québec;

E. Robert A. Edwards, Q.C., and Howard R. Eddy, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Kenneth J. Tyler and Robert G. Richards, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Robert J. Normey, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta;

S. Ronald Stevenson, for the intervener the Attorney General of Newfoundland.

Solicitors of Record:

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Braidwood, MacKenzie, Brewer & Greyell, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent the Department of Justice;

Pape & Salter, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervener the National Indian Brotherhood/the Assembly of First Nations;

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, B.C., for the interveners the B.C. Wildlife Federation et al.;

Mawhinney & Kellough, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervener the Fisheries Council of British Columbia;

Rankin & Company, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervener the United Fishermen & Allied Workers' Union;

Deputy Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Brian Barrington-Foote, Regina, Sask., for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Department of Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta;

Attorney General of Newfoundland, St. John's, Nfld., for the intervener the Attorney General of Newfoundland.

This case was heard on November 3, 1988, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 31, 1990, Dickson, C.J.C. and La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.

McIntyre, J., took no part in the judgment.