LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

DONALD GLADSTONE v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: DGVHMTQ201130, CourtName: ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, Plaintiff: DONALD GLADSTONE, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>DGVHMTQ201130, Aboriginals, Aboriginal Rights, Appellants, Regulations, Fish, Herring Spawn, Fisheries, Sell, Trade, British Columbia, Kelp, Evidence, Appeals, Constitution, Licence, Government, Extinguish, Prima Facie Infringement, Interveners, Regulatory Scheme, Fish Product, Constitution Act, Trial Judge, Distinctive Culture, Conservation, Commercial Fishing, Heiltsuk Band, Pacific Herring Fishery, Internal Limitation , ContentID: 120243662

Case Documents
1   APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110083
59 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 59 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . APPEAL

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
APPELLANTS
REGULATIONS
FISH
HERRING SPAWN
COURT
FISHERIES
SELL
TRADE
BRITISH COLUMBIA
KELP
EVIDENCE
APPEALS
CONSTITUTION
LICENCE
GOVERNMENT
EXTINGUISH
PRIMA FACIE INFRINGEMENT
INTERVENERS
REGULATORY SCHEME
FISH PRODUCT
CONSTITUTION ACT
TRIAL JUDGE
DISTINCTIVE CULTURE
CONSERVATION
COMMERCIAL FISHING
HEILTSUK BAND
PACIFIC HERRING FISHERY
INTERNAL LIMITATION

[1996] 2 S.C.R.         R. v. Gladstone         723
 Donald Gladstone and William Gladstone Appellants
 v.
 Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
 and
 The Attorney General of British Columbia,
the Attorney General for Alberta,
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 Interveners
 Indexed as: R. v. Gladstone
File No.: 23801.
1995: November 27, 28, 29; 1996: August 21.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Constitutional law -- Aboriginal rights -- Natives approaching buyer with sample of fish
product to determine if "interested"in buying -- Regulations requiring specific licence for
harvesting and sale of fish product -- Natives not having proper licence to sell fish
product -- Evidence indicating large scale trade in fish product prior to contact with
Europeans -- Whether an aboriginal right to harvest and trade in fish product -- Whether
the aboriginal right extinguished -- Whether aboriginal right infringed by regulations --
Whether any infringement justified -- Constitution Act, 1982, ss. 35(1), 52 -- Fisheries
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, s. 61(1) -- Pacific Herring Fishery Regulations, SOR/84-324, s.
(3).
Commercial law -- Attempt to sell -- Natives approaching buyer with sample of fish
product to determine if "interested" in buying -- Whether conduct amounting to attempt
to sell.
The accused were charged under s. 61(1) of the Fisheries Act with attempting to sell
herring spawn on kelp caught without the proper licence contrary to s. 20(3) of the
Pacific Herring Fishery Regulations. They had shipped a large quantity to the Vancouver
area and approached a fish dealer with a sample to see if he was "interested". One of the
accused, on arrest, produced an Indian food fish licence permitting him to harvest 500
pounds. The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal upheld the
convictions. The constitutional question before this Court questioned whether s. 20(3) of
the Pacific Herring Fishery Regulations was of no force or effect in the circumstances, in







SNIPPETS:
  • Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and The Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney
  • the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition
  • Constitutional law -- Aboriginal rights -- Natives approaching buyer with sample of fish ginal right infringed by regulations --Whether any infringement justified -- Constitution Act,
  • 61-- Pacific Herring Fishery Regulations, SOR/84-324, s.
  • 61of the Fisheries Act with attempting to sell herring spawn on kelp caught without the
  • The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.
  • The first step is the determination of the precise nature of the claim being made, taking
  • This exchange and trade was an integral part of the distinctive culture of the Heiltsuk prior
  • The appellants' activities, which, the trial judge found, were done in a completely different
  • More importantly, the government has, at various times, given preferences to aboriginal
  • As regards the issues of extinguishment and prima facie infringement, the reasons and
  • to extinguish the aboriginal right to sell, trade and barter fish for commercial purposes.
  • Under the regulatory scheme they can harvest for commercial purposes only to the limited
  • Where the aboriginal right has no internal limitation, however, the notion of priority, as
  • Unlike Sparrow, which considered only the justifiability of conservation objectives, this
  • Christopher Harvey, Q.C., and Robert Lonergan, for the interveners the British Columbia
  • The aboriginal right to trade in herring spawn on kelp is preserved by the operation of the
  • Despite academic appeals for greater clarity and certainty in this area of the law I find
  • Parliament is not expected to act in a manner contrary to the rights and interests of
  •    |