Kruger v R

Last updated
Kruger v R
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 19, 1976
Judgment: May 31, 1977
Full case nameJacob Kruger and Robert Manuel v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations [1978] 1 SCR 104, 1977 CanLII 3
Prior historyJudgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Holding
The Wildlife Act applies to Indians under section 88 of the Indian Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin
Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson, Roland Ritchie, Wishart Spence, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Louis-Philippe de Grandpré
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byDickson J.

Kruger v R, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the relationship between the Indian Act and provincial game laws. The Indian Act is a federal law enacted under the British North America Act, 1867, which gives jurisdiction over Aboriginals to the federal government. The Court found that the Indian Act's statement that provincial laws may apply to Aboriginal peoples in Canada as long as they apply to other people protects laws even if these laws affect Aboriginals more than others.

Contents

Background

Jacob Kruger and Robert Manuel were Penticton First Nations people in British Columbia who killed deer outside hunting season. This was the land on which their tribe usually hunted, and it now belonged to the Crown. Since the hunting violated the provincial Wildlife Act, they were charged, but they appealed citing their Aboriginal rights under the Royal Proclamation, 1763.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, pointing to section 88 of the Indian Act. Section 88 stipulates that, "all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act or any order, rule, regulation or by-law made thereunder, and except to the extent that such laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under this Act." The Court of Appeal found that this section allowed the Wildlife Act to apply to Aboriginals.

Decision

Justice Brian Dickson, writing for a unanimous Court, decided against Kruger and Manuel. Dickson first found that if hunting rights have been denied, it is not necessarily true that compensation must be provided in turn. No property was confiscated, as the Wildlife Act was geared toward a different purpose. Dickson also said that he would not reconsider the landmark Aboriginal case Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia (1973) to determine how Aboriginal title is properly extinguished.

Turning to the general questions in the case, Dickson cited The Queen v. George to state that section 88 of the Indian Act protected provincial laws with provincial purposes. In pith and substance, the law must apply to all people and not just a specific people for it to be a "general application" under section 88. It did not even matter if the law, while applying to all, had a more significant impact on Aboriginals than other people; Dickson said that "There are few laws which have a uniform impact." [1] Dickson then noted that the Wildlife Act's purpose did not specifically address Aboriginals, and that it covered all people. As Dickson quoted another judge as saying, "no statute of the Provincial Legislature dealing with Indians or their lands as such would be valid and effective; but there is no reason why general legislation may not affect them." [2]

Dickson also found that there was no evidence regarding an Aboriginal-related motive to the legislation. Thus, the Wildlife Act's purpose, Dickson concluded, was to preserve a natural resource, namely the wildlife, and was not meant to limit Aboriginal rights. Regarding whether hunting is an Aboriginal right, Dickson noted that "However abundant the right of Indians to hunt and to fish, there can be no doubt that such right is subject to regulation and curtailment by the appropriate legislative authority." [3] This case could be distinguished from an Aboriginal victory in R. v. White and Bob (1965). In the Kruger case, there was no treaty that would trump the provincial law under section 88.

Finally, Dickson stated that if section 88 can incorporate the Wildlife Act (instead of the Wildlife Act being effective in its own right), the Aboriginals would have the burden of proof that the Wildlife Act was inconsistent with the Indian Act.

Commentary

As Professor Peter Hogg writes, Indianness (primary Aboriginal issues under federal jurisdiction), should include hunting on a reserve. This was demonstrated in R. v. Jim (1915) and R. v. Isaac (1976). Outside a reserve, hunting as Indianness is more debatable; as this was what happened in the Kruger case, it appeared such hunting is not Indianness, but in Dick v. The Queen (1985), the Supreme Court assumed such hunting is Indianness. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

<i>Indian Act</i> Canadian act of Parliament originating in 1876 that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves.

The Indian Act is a Canadian act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document that defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history, the act has been a subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over five major changes" made in 2002.

<i>Constitution Act, 1867</i> Primary constitutional document of Canada

The Constitution Act, 1867 is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. The British North America Acts, including this Act, were renamed in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution ; however, it is still known by its original name in United Kingdom records. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

<i>R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd</i> Landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down a mandatory Sunday closing law

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech and obscenity.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

<i>R v Sparrow</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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, that were in existence in 1982 are protected under the Constitution of Canada 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.

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the first section under the heading "General" in the Charter, and like other sections within the "General" sphere, it aids in the interpretation of rights elsewhere in the Charter. While section 25 is also the Charter section that deals most directly with Aboriginal peoples in Canada, it does not create or constitutionalize rights for them.

<i>R v Van der Peet</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 is a leading case on Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court held that Aboriginal fishing rights did not extend to commercial selling of fish. From this case came the Van der Peet test for determining if an Aboriginal right exists. This is the first of three cases known as the Van der Peet trilogy which included R v NTC Smokehouse Ltd and R v Gladstone.

<i>St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R</i>

St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R was the leading case on Aboriginal title in Canada for more than 80 years. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, affirming a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, held that Aboriginal title over land was allowed only at the Crown's pleasure, and could be taken away at any time. This case, involving Ojibway Treaty No. 3 which had never been previously litigated before any court, is a leading decision in Canada on the differences between the division of legislative powers and property rights under the Constitution of Canada.

<i>R v Marshall; R v Bernard</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Marshall; R v Bernard 2005 SCC 43 is a leading Aboriginal rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court narrowed the test from R. v. Marshall for determining the extent of constitutional protection upon Aboriginal practices. The Court held that there was no right to commercial logging granted in the "Peace and Friendship treaties of 1760", the same set of treaties where the right to commercial fishing was granted in the R. v. Marshall decision. This decision also applied and developed the test for aboriginal title from Delgamuukw v British Columbia.

<i>R v Badger</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of aboriginal treaty rights. The Court set out a number of principles regarding the interpretation of treaties between the Crown and aboriginal peoples in Canada.

R. v. Jim (1915) 26 C.C.C. 236, was a decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court on Aboriginal ("Indian") hunting and provincial game laws. The Court found that Aboriginal hunting on Indian reserves is primarily federal jurisdiction, relating to section 91(24) of the British North America Act, 1867 which assigns "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" to the federal government.

Aboriginal title Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. 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.

R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43, commonly called the Powley ruling, is a Supreme Court of Canada case defining Métis Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

<i>Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Paul v British Columbia , 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

<i>Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Daniels v Canada , 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.

References

  1. ↑ Page 110.
  2. ↑ Page 111.
  3. ↑ Pages 111-112.
  4. ↑ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003, page 595.

Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.