[1990] 1 S.C.R. r. v. sioui 1025
The Attorney General of Quebec Appellant
v.
Régent Sioui, Conrad Sioui,
Georges Sioui and Hugues Sioui Respondents
and
The Attorney General of Canada and
the National Indian Brotherhood/
Assembly of First Nations Interveners
indexed as: r. v. sioui
File No.: 20628.
1989: October 31, November 1; 1990: May 24.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC
Indians -- Treaty -- Rights -- Customs and religion -- Huron band Indians charged with
cutting down trees, camping and making fires in places not designated in Jacques-Cartier
park contrary to provincial regulations -- Whether regulations applicable to Hurons
practising customs and religious rites -- Whether document signed by General Murray in
1760 guaranteeing them free exercise of their customs and religion is a treaty -- Whether
treaty still in effect -- Whether territorial scope of treaty extends to territory of park so as
to make regulations unenforceable in respect of accused -- Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-
5, s. 88 -- Regulation respecting the Parc de la Jacques-Cartier, (1981) 113 O.G. II 3518,
ss. 9, 37.
The respondents are members of the Huron band on the Lorette Indian reserve. They
were convicted by the Court of Sessions of the Peace of cutting down trees, camping and
making fires in places not designated in Jacques-Cartier park contrary to ss. 9 and 37 of
the Regulation respecting the Parc de la Jacques-Cartier, adopted pursuant to the Quebec
Parks Act. The respondents appealed to the Superior Court against this judgment by way
of trial de novo. They admitted committing the acts with which they were charged in the
park, which is located outside the boundaries of the Lorette reserve. However, they
alleged that they were practising certain ancestral customs and religious rites which are
the subject of a treaty between the Hurons and the British, a treaty which brings s. 88 of
the Indian Act into play and exempts them from compliance with the regulations. The
treaty that the respondents rely on is a document of 1760 signed by General Murray. This
document guaranteed the Hurons, in exchange for their surrender, British protection and
the free exercise of their religion, customs and trade with the English. At that time the
Hurons were settled at Lorette and made regular use of the territory of Jacques-Cartier
park. The Superior Court held that the document was not a treaty and dismissed the
appeal. A majority of the Court of Appeal reversed this judgment. The court found that
SNIPPETS:
Georges Sioui and Hugues Sioui Respondents and The Attorney General of Canada and the
Assembly of First Nations Interveners indexed as:
Indians -- Treaty -- Rights -- Customs and religion -- Huron band Indians charged with
reaty extends to territory of park so as to make regulations unenforceable in respect of accused --
They were convicted by the Court of Sessions of the Peace of cutting down trees, camping and
However, they alleged that they were practising certain ancestral customs and religious rites
88 of the Indian Act into play and exempts them from compliance with the regulations.
The treaty that the respondents rely on is a document of 1760 signed by General Murray.
This document guaranteed the Hurons, in exchange for their surrender, British protection and
At that time the Hurons were settled at Lorette and made regular use of the territory of
Though the wording of the document does not suffice to determine its legal nature, the
Even if Great Britain was not sovereign in Canada in 1760, the Hurons could reasonably have
In the case of the Hurons, though they could not claim historical occupation or possession of
1763 did not have the effect of terminating rights resulting from the treaty.
Since the Hurons had the capacity to enter into a treaty with the British Crown, they were
As there is no express indication of the territorial scope of the treaty, it must be
When the historical context is given its full meaning, the interpretation that is called for
Act of Capitulation of Montreal,
Robert Décary, Q.C., and René Morin, for the appellant.
Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
In the Superior Court the respondents also made the following argument, which was then
The appellant deduces this requirement from the fact that most of the cases involving
The papers of Sir William Johnson, who was in charge of Indian affairs in British North
|
