R. v. Yellow Horn (B.), (2004) 352 A.R. 324 (PC)

• Judge: Jacobson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 09, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 352 A.R. 324 (PC);2004 ABPC 27

R. v. Yellow Horn (B.) (2004), 352 A.R. 324 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. FE.120

Her Majesty The Queen v. Bella Yellow Horn

(A05733652W; 2004 ABPC 27)

Indexed As: R. v. Yellow Horn (B.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Jacobson, P.C.J.

February 9, 2004.

Summary:

Yellow Horn, an aboriginal person, was charged under the Motor Vehicle Administration Act with, inter alia, driving an uninsured motor vehicle. Yellow Horn, a card-carrying member of the Blackfoot nation, challenged the validity of the Indian Act and Treaty 7 under constitutional and international law, submitting that as she was a member of a sovereign nation which did not recognize Canadian law or sovereignty, she did not require insurance.

The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the defence and found Yellow Horn guilty.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6350

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Indians and lands reserved for Indians - General - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2

Aboriginal rights - Sovereign incompatibility - Yellow Horn was charged under the Motor Vehicle Administration Act with driving an uninsured motor vehicle - Yellow Horn, a card-carrying member of the Blackfoot nation, challenged the validity of the Indian Act and Treaty 7 under constitutional and international law, submitting that as she was a member of a sovereign nation which did not recognize Canadian law or sovereignty, she did not require insurance - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the defence and found Yellow Horn guilty - The court stated that "the defence has not proved a 'prima facie infringement' based on actual or even an apprehension of bias, partiality, unfair procedure, subconscious racial profiling, systemic or conscious racism, nor any other form of human rights discrimination, or genocide. The motor vehicle legislation of the province regulates the privilege to lawfully operate motor vehicles on highways within the province. The legislation contains bona fide restrictions and penalties which are not contrary to human rights or values. There is no nexus between the alleged aboriginal complaints, past and present, with the objectives and effect of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act. It was necessary for the police to enforce the legislation. The Defendant has failed to establish any foundation within the Canadian system of the administration of justice on which to base either constitutional or international law issues. There has not been a breach of fundamental or natural justice, nor any contravention of constitutional or international law. There is no factual or legal basis for a constitutional or international law complaint in relation to the provincial legislation".

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6266

Government - What laws govern - Provincial laws of general application - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2 ].

International Law - Topic 2001

Sovereignty - General - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2 ].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3283

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Insurance - Driving without insurance - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie - see R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City).

Strasser v. Roberge, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 953; 29 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Bisson (Y.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 306; 222 N.R. 365; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 38 C.R.(4th) 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Francis v. R., [1956] S.C.R. 618, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 85 N.R. 3; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 243; 217 A.P.R. 243, refd to. [para. 90].

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; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 193; [1998] 1 C.N.L.R. 14, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Two Young Men (1979), 10 Alta. L.R.(2d) 15 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Fox (1979), 20 A.R. 451 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1980), 31 N.R. 359; 5 M.V.R. 151 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Charlie (1985), 19 D.L.R.(4th) 539 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

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. 93].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 410, refd to. [para. 94].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 101].

Indian Residential Schools, Re (2000), 268 A.R. 42 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Littlechild (R.N.), [2002] A.R. Uned. 571 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Little Plume (S.W.) (2003), 360 A.R. 8 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 111].

Counsel:

E. Brooks, for the Crown;

K.J.W. Sandstrom, for the For the Constitutional and Aboriginal Law;

James M. Craven, agent for the defendant, Bella Yellow Horn.

This case was heard before Jacobson, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 9, 2004.