The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.
Native title is the set of rights, recognised by Australian law, held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. These Aboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australian common law with the decision of Mabo v Queensland in 1992. The doctrine was subsequently implemented and modified via statute with the Native Title Act 1993.
R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 was an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court held that Aboriginal rights, such as fishing, in existence in 1982 are protected under the Constitution of Canada and so they cannot be infringed without justification on account of the government's fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to the indigenous and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. The section, while within the Constitution of Canada, falls outside the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section does not define the term "aboriginal rights" or provide a closed list; some examples of the rights that section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to land and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to indigenous self-government is included within section 35. As of 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada has made no ruling on the matter. However, since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.
Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.
Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law.
Guerin v The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on Aboriginal rights where the Court first stated that the government has a fiduciary duty towards the First Nations of Canada and established Aboriginal title to be a sui generis right.
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971.
Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG), 2000 CanLII 16991, 51 OR (3d) 641; 195 DLR (4th) 135 was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning aboriginal title in Canada.
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.
Canadian Aboriginal law is the body of law of Canada that concerns a variety of issues related to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Canadian Aboriginal Law is different from Canadian Indigenous law: In Canada, Indigenous Law refers to the legal traditions, customs, and practices of Indigenous peoples and groups. Aboriginal peoples as a collective noun is a specific term of art used in legal documents, including the Constitution Act, 1982, and includes First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. Canadian Aboriginal law provides certain constitutionally recognized rights to land and traditional practices. Canadian Aboriginal Law enforces and interprets certain treaties between the Crown and Indigenous people, and manages much of their interaction. A major area of Aboriginal law involves the duty to consult and accommodate.
In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the term treaty rights specifically refers to rights for indigenous peoples enumerated in treaties with settler societies that arose from European colonization.
Peter William Hutchins was a Canadian lawyer specializing in Canadian Aboriginal law. He was "one of [Canada's] top litigators in aboriginal cases".
Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Chippewas of the Thames First Nation is an Anishinaabe (Ojibway) First Nations band government located 24 kilometres (15 mi) west of St. Thomas, in southwest Ontario, Canada. Their land base is the 3,652.60 hectares Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 42 reserve, which almost entirely surrounds the separate reserve of Munsee-Delaware 1. As of January 2014, their registered population is 2,738 people with 957 living on reserve.
Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqotʼin First Nation, with larger effects. As a result of the landmark decision, provinces cannot unilaterally claim a right to engage in clearcut logging on lands protected by Aboriginal title; they must engage in meaningful consultation with the title holder before they proceed. Although the Aboriginal title holder does not have to consent to the activity, meaningful consultation is required before infringement of the right can take place.
In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate with Indigenous Peoples arises when the Crown contemplates actions or decisions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. This duty arises most often in the context of natural resource extraction such as mining, forestry, oil, and gas.
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which concerns whether or not a First Nation can block real estate development on sacred sites by virtue of the concepts of freedom of religion and the duty to consult and accommodate.
The Council of the Haida Nation is the elected government of the Haida Nation. The council consists of a president and vice-president elected by popular vote, twelve regional representatives from four electoral regions, and one appointed representative from each of the Old Massett Village Council and Skidegate Band Council.
The Van der Peet test or the Integral to a Distinctive Culture Test is a legal test used in Canada to determine whether an activity is considered an "Aboriginal right" under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. The test was established in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Van der Peet (1996). The test has three parts, which must all be satisfied for the activity to be considered an Aboriginal right:
- The practice, custom, or tradition must be an element of a practice, custom, or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right.
- The practice, custom, or tradition must have existed prior to contact with Europeans.
- The practice, custom, or tradition must have been central to Aboriginal society's way of life.
Indigenous North Americas 
Canadaportal