R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), (1996) 200 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 21, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 200 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1996] 2 SCR 507;[1996] 9 WWR 1;[1996] ACS no 77;200 NR 1;23 BCLR (3d) 1;130 WAC 81;[1996] 4 CNLR 177;80 BCAC 81;137 DLR (4th) 289;1996 CanLII 216 (SCC);50 CR (4th) 1;109 CCC (3d) 1;[1996] SCJ No 77 (QL)

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.) (1996), 200 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Dorothy Marie Van der Peet (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Quebec, The Fisheries Council of British Columbia, The British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition and The British Columbia Wildlife Federation, The First Nations Summit, Delgamuukw, et al., Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner (intervenors)

(23803)

Indexed As: R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

August 21, 1996.

Summary:

The accused member of the Sto:lo Band was charged under s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act with selling fish (10 salmon) caught under the authority of an Indian food licence, contrary to s. 27(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations.

The British Columbia Provincial Court convicted the accused. The court held that the Sto:lo Band had an aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes, but historically, no aboriginal right to sell fish commercially. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 392, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court held that the Sto:lo Band had an aboriginal right to sell fish. Accordingly, a new trial was needed to determine whether this aboriginal right had been extinguished, whether the Regulations infringed the right and whether any infringement was justified. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert and Hutcheon, JJ.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 29 B.C.A.C. 209; 48 W.A.C. 209, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction. The court held that the Sto:lo Band did not have an aboriginal right to sell fish commercially. The accused appealed, submitting that s. 27(5) of the British Co­lumbia Fishery (General) Regulations was of no force and effect, because it violated the accused's aboriginal right to sell fish.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., dis­senting, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision restoring the trial judge's conviction for violating s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act. The court held that the Sto:lo did not have an aboriginal right to exchange fish for money or other goods.

Fish and Game - Topic 963

Indian, Inuit and Métis rights - Right to fish and regulation of Indian fishery - Effect of Constitution Act - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 506

Rights - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 - Interpretation - The Supreme Court of Canada re-outlined the framework for analyzing s. 35(1) claims respecting con­stitutionally guaranteed aboriginal rights as previously articulated in R. v. Sparrow - The court stated that "first, a court must determine whether an applicant has dem­onstrated that he or she was acting pursu­ant to an aboriginal right. Second, a court must determine whether that right has been extinguished. Third, a court must deter­mine whether that right has been infringed. Finally, a court must determine whether the infringement is justified." - The court discussed the purposes which underpinned s. 35(1), specifically the reasons underly­ing its recognition and affirmation of the unique constitutional status of aboriginal peoples in Canada - See paragraphs 2 to 3.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 506

Rights - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 - Interpretation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 35(1), which guaranteed existing aboriginal rights, should be given a generous and liberal interpretation in favour of aboriginal peoples - The court stated that "the fiduciary relationship of the Crown and aboriginal peoples also means that where there is any doubt or ambiguity with regards to what falls within the scope and definition of s. 35(1), such doubt or ambi­guity must be resolved in favour of abo­riginal peoples" - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6003

Aboriginal rights - Protection of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1) [Constitution Act, 1982] are best understood as, first, the means by which the Constitution recognizes the fact that prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America the land was already occupied by distinctive aboriginal societies, and as, second, the means by which that prior occupation is reconciled with the assertion of Crown sovereignty over Cana­dian territory. The content of aboriginal rights must be directed at fulfilling both of these purposes" - See paragraph 43.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005

Aboriginal rights - Nature of - [See first Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - Proof of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a s. 35(1) protected aboriginal right was "a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal groups claiming the right" - Courts analyzing claims were guided by the following prin­ciples: (1) The perspective of the aborig­inal people and the fact that aboriginal rights exist within the general legal system of Canada must both be considered; (2) The precise nature of the aboriginal claim must be identified; (3) The practice, tradi­tion or custom must be a "central and significant part of the society's distinctive culture" (i.e., whether or not it was a defining feature of the culture); (4) The practices, customs and traditions constitut­ing aboriginal rights were those having continuity with the traditions, customs and practices pre-dating European contact (although a break in the continuity chain was not necessarily fatal); (5) Courts must apply the rules of evidence in light of evidentiary difficulties in adjudicating aboriginal claims; (6) Claims must be adjudicated on a specific rather than a general basis (i.e., existence of right spe­cific to each aboriginal community); (7) A practice, tradition or custom must be inde­pendently significant to the aboriginal culture (incidental practices, etc., were not aboriginal rights); (8) An aboriginal right was a practice, custom or tradition that was distinctive, but need not be distinct; (9) Practices, customs and traditions aris­ing solely as a response to European influ­ences were not aboriginal rights; and (10) The courts must consider the relationship of aboriginal peoples to the land and the distinctive societies and cultures of aborig­inal peoples - See paragraphs 44 to 75.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6012

Aboriginal rights - Proof of - The accused member of the Sto:lo Band was convicted under s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act with selling fish (10 salmon) caught under authority of an Indian Band food licence, contrary to s. 27(5) of the British Colum­bia Fishery (General) Regulations - The accused claimed an aboriginal right "to exchange fish for money or for other goods" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that no aboriginal right to sell fish existed - Based on the facts found by the trial judge, the practice of exchanging fish for money or other goods was not an integral part of the specific distinctive culture of the Sto:lo prior to contact with Europeans - The exchange of salmon for money or other goods, while certainly occurring in Sto:lo society before Euro­pean contact, was not a significant, integral or defining feature of that society - See paragraphs 76 to 91.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - Extinguishment - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "sub­sequent to s. 35(1) [Constitution Act, 1982] aboriginal rights cannot be extin­guished and can only be regulated or infringed consistent with the justificatory test laid out by this court in Sparrow" - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263, appld. [para. 1].

R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd. (1996), 200 N.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al. (1996), 200 N.R. 189 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 3].

Washington (State) v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association (1979), 443 U.S. 658, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 18].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 21].

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. 24].

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. 24].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. George, [1966] S.C.R. 267, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sutherland, Wilson, Canada (Attor­ney General) et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451; 35 N.R. 361; 7 Man.R.(2d) 359, refd to. [para. 25].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Kruger and Manuel, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Derriksan (1976), 71 D.L.R.(3d) 159 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 34].

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543, refd to. [para. 36].

Worcester v. Georgia (1832), 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) (1992), 175 C.L.R. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

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. 81].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 81].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 81].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 81].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 81].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 81].

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. 95].

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 107].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 A.C. 46 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Lewis (A.J.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 921; 196 N.R. 165; 75 B.C.A.C. 1; 23 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 118].

Baker Lake (Hamlet) v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1980] 1 F.C. 518 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 119].

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. [para. 120].

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. 122].

Sikyea v. R., [1964] S.C.R. 642, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Taylor (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 227 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Jack et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 294; 28 N.R. 162, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Denny (1990), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 253; 247 A.P.R. 253; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 142].

Blaikie v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016; 30 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 142].

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158; 123 D.L.R.(3d) 554, refd to. [para. 142].

Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario - see Residential Tenacies Act of Ontario, Re.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Moosehunter, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 282; 36 N.R. 437; 9 Sask.R. 149, refd to. [para. 143].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al. (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 158].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 158].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 158].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 158].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 158].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 161].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Frank, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 95; 15 N.R. 487; 4 A.R. 271, refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. Jones (1993), 14 O.R.(3d) 421 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. King, [1993] O.J. No. 1794 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Fraser, [1994] 3 C.N.L.R. 139 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 190].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6, refd to. [para. 201].

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. 201].

Lapointe v. Chevrette, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 116; 45 Q.A.C. 262, refd to. [para. 201].

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur - see Lapointe v. Chevrette.

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 201].

Tanistry Case, Re (1608), Dav. Ir. 28; 80 E.R. 516 (Ir.), refd to. [para. 264].

Southern Rhodesia, Re, [1919] A.C. 211, refd to. [para. 264].

Adeyinka Oyekan v. Musendiku Adele, [1957] 2 All E.R. 785 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 264].

Tijani v. Secretary Southern Nigeria, [1921] 2 A.C. 399 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 268].

United States v. Dion (1986), 476 U.S. 734, refd to. [para. 286].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(24) [para. 118].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(1) [para. 128].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, sect. 61(1) [para. 5].

Fisheries Act Regulations (Can.), British Columbia Fishery (General) Regu­lations, SOR/84-248, sect. 27(5) [paras. 5, 99].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 81, sect. 88 [para. 118].

Royal Proclamation (1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II. No. 1, generally [para. 110].

Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. W-9, sect. 42 [para. 184].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Asch, Michael, Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Constitution (1984), generally [para. 109].

Asch, Michael, and Macklem, Patrick, Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Sovereignty: An Essay on R. v. Sparrow (1991), 29 Alta. Law Rev. 498, pp. 502 [para. 19]; 505 [para. 160].

Binnie, W.I.C., The Sparrow Doctrine: Beginning of the End or End of the Beginning? (1990), 15 Queen's L.J. 217, pp. 234, 235 [para. 190].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), vol. 2, p. 51 [para. 174].

Bowker, Andrea, Sparrow's Promise: Aboriginal Rights in the B.C. Court of Appeal (1995), 53 Toronto Fac. L. Rev. 1, pp. 28, 29 [para. 156].

Chitty, Joseph, A Treatise on the Law of Prerogatives of the Crown (1820), p. 119 [para. 174].

Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Ed. 1995) [para. 40].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), generally [para. 290].

Duff, William, The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser Valley of British Columbia (Anthropology in British Columbia-Memoir 1), p. 11 [para. 209].

Elliott, David, Law and Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), p. 25 [para. 41].

Emond, André, Existe-t-il un titre indien originare dans les territoires cédés par la France en 1763? (1995), 41 McGill L.J. 59, p. 62 [para. 110].

Emond, André, Le sable dans l'engrenage du droit inhérent des autochtones à l'autonomie gouvernementale (1996), 30 R.J.T. 1, p. 1 [para. 111].

Grammond, Sébastien, La protection constitutionnelle des droits ancestraux des peuples autochtones et l'arret Sparrow (1991), 36 McGill L.J. 1382, pp. 1403, 1404 [para. 167].

Halsbury's Laws of Australia (1991), vol. 1, paras. 5-2250, 5-2255, 5-2260, 5-2265 [para. 38].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 679 [para. 112].

Holdsworth, William Searle, History of English Law (1938), vol. 11, pp. 3 to 274 [para. 174].

Lafontaine, Alain, La coexistence de l'obligation de fiduciare de la Couronne et du droit à l'autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones (1995), 36 C. de D. 669, generally [para. 144].

Le Petit Robert (1990) [para. 32].

Lyon, Noel, An Essay on Constitutional Interpretation (1988), 26 Osgoode Hall L.J. 95, p. 100 [para. 229].

Lysyk, Kenneth, The Indian Title Question in Canada: An Appraisal in the Light of Calder (1973), 51 Can. Bar Rev. 450, generally [para. 125].

Macklem, Patrick, First Nations Self-Government and the Borders of the Canadian Legal Imagination (1991), 36 McGill L.J. 382, generally [para. 112].

Macklem, Patrick, Normative Dimensions of an Aboriginal Right of Self-Government (1995), 21 Queen's L.J. 173, p. 180 [para. 41].

McNeil, Kent, Common Law Aboriginal Title (1989), generally [para. 112].

McNeil, Kent, The Constitutional Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (1982), 4 Supreme Court L.R. 255, generally [para. 132].

Pentney, William, The Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada in the Constitution Act, 1982, Part II -- Sec­tion 35: The Substantive Guarantee (1988), 22 U.B.C. Law Rev. 207, pp. 255 [para. 143]; 258 [para. 41].

Sanders, Douglas, The Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (1983), 61 Can. Bar Rev. 314, generally [para. 116].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1978), vol. 1 [para. 256].

Slattery, Brian, The Land Rights of Indigenous Canadian Peoples, as Affected by the Crown's Acquisition of Their Territories (1979), generally [para. 108].

Slattery, Brian, Ancestral Lands, Alien Laws: Judicial Perspectives on Aboriginal Title (1983), generally [para. 174].

Slattery, Brian, The Constitutional Guarantee of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (1983), 8 Queen's L.J. 232, p. 242 [para. 112].

Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, pp. 741, 742 [para. 113]; 759 [para. 35]; 776 [para. 19].

Slattery, Brian, The Legal Basis of Aboriginal Title in Aboriginal Title in British Columbia: Delgamuukw v. the Queen (1992), pp. 121, 122 [para. 42].

Slattery, Brian, Aboriginal Sovereignty and Imperial Claims (1991), 29 Osgoode Hall L.J. 681, generally [para. 109].

Slattery, Brian, First Nations and the Constitution: A Question of Trust (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 261, p. 263 [para. 126].

Walters, Mark, British Imperial Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Rights: A Comment on Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1992), 17 Queen's L.J. 350, pp. 412, 413 [para. 42].

Counsel:

Louise Mandell and Leslie J. Pinder, for the appellant;

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and Cheryl J. Tobias, for the respondent;

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

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

Christopher Harvey, Q.C., and Robert Lonergan, for the intervenors, British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition and British Columbia Wildlife Feder­ation;

Harry A. Slade, Arthur C. Pape and Robert C. Freedman, for the intervenor, First Nations Summit;

Stuart Rush, Q.C., and Michael Jackson, for the intervenors, Delgamuukw, et al.;

Arthur C. Pape and Clayton C. Ruby, for the intervenors, Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner.

Solicitors of Record:

Mandell, Pinder, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

J. Keith Lowes, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, Fisheries Council of British Columbia;

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors, British Columbia Fish­eries Survival Coalition and British Co­lumbia Wildlife Federation;

Ratcliff & Co., North Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, First Nations Summit;

Rush Crane, Guenther & Adams, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors, Delgamuukw, et al.;

Pape & Salter, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors, Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner.

This appeal was heard on November 27-29, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On August 21, 1996, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gon­thier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 94;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 95 to 223;

McLachlin, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 224 to 322.