R v Marshall; R v Bernard facts for kids
Quick facts for kids R v Marshall; R v Bernard |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: January 17, 18, 2005 Judgment: July 20, 2005 |
|
| Full case name | Her Majesty The Queen v Joshua Bernard, et al. and Her Majesty The Queen v Stephen Frederick Marshall, et al. |
| Citations | 2005 SCC 43, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220 |
| Ruling | The appeals allowed and the convictions restored. Marshall cross‑appeal is dismissed. |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | McLachlin C.J. |
| Concurrence | LeBel J. |
R v Marshall; R v Bernard 2005 SCC 43 is an important decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. This case helped to clarify what "Aboriginal rights" mean, especially regarding old treaties. The Court looked at whether the "Peace and Friendship treaties of 1760" gave Indigenous people the right to cut trees for business.
The Court decided that these treaties, which gave rights for commercial fishing in an earlier case (R. v. Marshall), did not give the same right for commercial logging. This decision also helped to explain how "aboriginal title" (the idea that Indigenous people own certain lands) is proven.
Contents
What Happened in the Case?
This case actually combined two different situations.
The Marshall Case
In the first situation, Stephen Marshall and 34 other Mi'kmaq people were accused of cutting down trees on land owned by the government in Nova Scotia. They did not have a special permit to do this.
The Bernard Case
In the second situation, Joshua Bernard, who is also Mi'kmaq, was accused of having logs that were taken from a saw mill in New Brunswick. These logs had been cut from government-owned lands.
In both cases, the people accused said that because they were Indigenous, they had the right to cut trees on government land for business. They believed this right came from the Peace and Friendship treaties.
At first, the judges found all the accused people guilty. But later, a higher court (the provincial courts of appeal) changed these decisions and said they were not guilty.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada had the final say. Chief Justice McLachlin wrote the main decision for the Court.
Commercial Logging Rights
The Court decided that the treaties did not give a right to cut trees for business. The evidence did not show that cutting trees for business was a main part of the Mi'kmaq people's traditional way of life or their identity. Because of this, the Supreme Court brought back the original guilty verdicts.
Aboriginal Title Claims
The Court also talked about "aboriginal title." This is when Indigenous groups claim they have a special right to land because their ancestors lived there before Canada was formed. The Court used a test from an earlier case called Delgamuukw v British Columbia.
To prove aboriginal title, people must show that their ancestors "exclusively occupied" the land before Canada became a country. The Court said that just hunting or fishing in an area at certain times of the year was not enough to prove this. However, they did say that if there was enough proof, nomadic or semi-nomadic people could still show aboriginal title, as long as they could prove they had enough control over the land.
More Information
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
- The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis
- Canadian Aboriginal case law
- Numbered Treaties
- Indian Act
- Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982
- Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)
