R v Van der Peet facts for kids
Quick facts for kids R v Van der Peet |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: November 27, 28, 29, 1995 Judgment: August 21, 1996 |
|
| Full case name | Dorothy Marie Van der Peet v Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 |
| Docket No. | 23803 |
| Ruling | Van der Peet appeal dismissed |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Lamer C.J., joined by La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ. |
| Dissent | L'Heureux-Dubé J. |
| Dissent | McLachlin J. |
| Laws applied | |
| R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 | |
R v Van der Peet is a very important court case from 1996. It helped explain what Aboriginal rights mean in Canada. These rights are protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court decided that Aboriginal fishing rights did not include selling fish for money. This case also created a special way to figure out if an Aboriginal right exists. It was the first of three big cases, called the Van der Peet trilogy, which also included R v NTC Smokehouse Ltd and R v Gladstone.
Contents
What Happened in the Case?
On September 11, 1987, two men, Steven and Charles Jimmy, caught sockeye salmon. They were fishing near Chilliwack, British Columbia. They had special licenses that allowed them to catch fish for food. However, these licenses did not allow them to sell the fish.
Charles Jimmy brought the fish to Dorothy Van der Peet. She was a member of the Stó:lō Nation. Dorothy cleaned the fish and put them on ice. Later, a non-Indigenous person offered to buy ten fish for $5 each. Dorothy Van der Peet agreed to sell them. Because she sold the fish, she was later accused of breaking a fishing rule. The rule said fish caught with a food-only license could not be sold.
The Court's Decision
The main question for the Supreme Court was this: Did the rule against selling fish go against Dorothy Van der Peet's Aboriginal rights?
The Court decided 7 to 2 that the rule was fair. They said that an Aboriginal right must be a practice, custom, or tradition that is a key part of an Indigenous group's unique culture. The Court found that selling fish for money was not a main part of the Stó:lō culture before Europeans arrived.
The Van der Peet Test
The Supreme Court created a special guide to decide if something is an Aboriginal right. This guide is called the "Integral to a Distinctive Culture Test." It has ten main parts:
- Courts must understand things from the point of view of Indigenous peoples.
- Courts need to be very clear about what specific right is being claimed.
- For something to be an Aboriginal right, it must have been very important to the Indigenous society.
- These practices must have continued from before Europeans came to Canada.
- Courts should be flexible with evidence because it can be hard to find old records for Indigenous claims.
- Each claim for an Aboriginal right should be looked at separately, not as a general rule for all groups.
- The practice must be important on its own to the Indigenous culture.
- The test looks for practices that are "distinctive" to a culture, not necessarily "unique" (meaning other cultures might have similar practices).
- If a practice became important only because of European influence, it might not count as an Aboriginal right.
- Courts must consider how Indigenous peoples relate to their land and their unique societies.
Thoughts on the Decision
Some experts, like John Borrows, who studies Canadian Aboriginal Law, have talked about this test. He said that the test looks mostly at what was important to Indigenous communities in the past. He worried that this might not fully recognize what is important to these communities today. He also thought it could accidentally support old ideas about Indigenous peoples.
See also
- The Canadian Crown and Aboriginal peoples
- Numbered Treaties
- Indian Act
- Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982
- Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)
