R v Sparrow facts for kids
Quick facts for kids R v Sparrow |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: November 3, 1988 Judgment: May 31, 1990 |
|
| Full case name | Ronald Edward Sparrow v Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, 70 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 4 W.W.R. 410, 56 C.C.C. (3d) 263, 3 C.N.L.R. 160, 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 |
| Docket No. | 20311 |
| Prior history | Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia |
| Ruling | Appeal and cross appeal dismissed |
| Holding | |
| The governments of Canada have a fiduciary relationship with Aboriginals under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; any denial of Aboriginal rights under section 35 must be justified, and Aboriginal rights must be given priority | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | Dickson and La Forest |
R v Sparrow was a very important court case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990. This case helped explain how Aboriginal rights are protected under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court decided that Aboriginal rights, like the right to fishing, that existed in 1982 are protected by the Constitution of Canada. These rights cannot be taken away or limited without a very good reason. This is because the government has a special duty of trust, called a fiduciary duty, towards Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Contents
What Happened: The Story of Ronald Sparrow
The case started with a man named Ronald Edward Sparrow. He was a member of the Musqueam community. In 1985, he was caught fishing with a net that was longer than what his fishing license allowed. His net was 45 fathoms (about 82 meters) long, which was 20 fathoms (about 37 meters) longer than permitted by the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Sparrow admitted he used the longer net. However, he argued that he was simply using his Aboriginal right to fish. He believed this right was protected by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
At first, the lower courts did not agree with him. They said that Section 35 only protected rights that were part of treaties, and that there was no natural right to fish. Mr. Sparrow kept appealing his case, and eventually, it reached the Supreme Court of Canada. The main question for the Supreme Court was whether the rule about net length went against his protected Aboriginal right to fish.
How the Court Decided: Understanding Aboriginal Rights
The Supreme Court of Canada made a unanimous decision, meaning all the judges agreed. The main judgment was given by Chief Justice Brian Dickson and Justice Gérard La Forest. They ruled that Mr. Sparrow was indeed using an "inherent" Aboriginal right. This right existed before the fishing laws were made and was protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Court carefully looked at each word in Section 35(1) to understand its meaning.
The Sparrow Test: Checking Aboriginal Rights
The Supreme Court created a set of questions, now known as the "Sparrow test." This test helps figure out if an Aboriginal right is being protected or if it has been unfairly limited.
- Is the activity (like fishing) a real, existing Aboriginal right based on old customs or traditions?
- If it is an existing right, does the new rule or law seem to break or limit that right?
- If the rule seems to limit the right, can the government show a good reason for doing so?
In Mr. Sparrow's case, it was clear that the Musqueam people had an existing right to fish for food. So, the case mainly focused on whether that right was limited and if that limit was fair.
What "Existing" Means for Rights
The word "existing" in Section 35(1) is very important. The Court said it means rights that were not "extinguished" (or completely taken away) before the Constitution was put in place in 1982. It does not mean rights that were only being used in 1982. This flexible meaning allows Aboriginal rights to change and grow over time, rather than being "frozen" in the past.
The Court looked at historical records of the Musqueam people. They found clear evidence that the Musqueam had fished for food for centuries. This showed they had a strong, existing right to fish.
The Court also explained that a right can only be "extinguished" if the government clearly and plainly intended to end that right. In this case, the fishing license rules were just a way to manage fishing, not to take away the Musqueam's basic right to fish for food. The government could not prove that it had ever clearly intended to end this right before 1982.
"Recognized and Affirmed": A Special Trust
The words "recognized and affirmed" in the Constitution mean that the government has a special duty of trust, or a fiduciary duty, towards Aboriginal peoples. This means the government must be careful and responsible when making laws that might affect Aboriginal rights. It also means that while Aboriginal rights are strong, they are not completely unlimited. They can be affected if there is a very good reason.
When Can Rights Be Limited? Justification
If a government rule seems to limit an Aboriginal right, the government must prove that the limit is fair and justified. The Court listed what the government needs to show:
- Valid Goal: The rule must have a good reason, like protecting fish populations (conservation) or managing resources. It cannot just be for a general "public interest."
- Minimal Impact: The rule should limit the right as little as possible. It should not be more restrictive than needed.
- Consultation: The government must talk to the Aboriginal group involved before making the rule.
- Compensation: If the government takes away part of a right, like land (called expropriation), there should be fair payment.
What Happened Next: The Impact of Sparrow
The Sparrow case changed how laws are made in Canada regarding Aboriginal rights. After this decision, federal or provincial laws can only limit Aboriginal rights if they give these rights special importance. This is because Aboriginal rights are seen as different and more important than other non-Aboriginal rights.
The "Sparrow test" is now used by many experts and courts to decide how much Canadian laws can affect Aboriginal rights. For example, giving out hunting licenses through a lottery might not be fair if it doesn't give priority to Aboriginal hunting rights.
See also
- 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)
Supreme Court of Canada
