David Paterson

The appellant, a former student at an Indian residential school operated by the Government of Canada and the United Church of Canada, sought damages for sexual abuse suffered at the school.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that both Canada and the Church were jointly vicariously liable for the sexual assaults committed by a dormitory supervisor, rejecting the application of a doctrine of charitable immunity for the Church.

The Court also found that the Indian Act did not impose a non-delegable statutory duty on Canada to ensure student safety.

The trial judge's unequal apportionment of fault (75% to Canada, 25% to the Church) and assessment of damages, which excluded prior trauma and statute-barred wrongs, were upheld.

Appeal in a major Aboriginal title claim involving hereditary chiefs asserting rights over a large area of British Columbia.

The Court held that Aboriginal title is a sui generis right in land protected by s. 35(1), conferring exclusive use and occupation for a variety of purposes subject to an inherent limit against uses irreconcilable with the group’s attachment to the land.

The Court also held that oral histories must be given due weight in Aboriginal litigation and that the trial judge erred in his treatment of such evidence, requiring a new trial.

On the cross-appeal, the Court held that the province lacked constitutional authority after 1871 to extinguish Aboriginal rights, either directly or through s. 88 of the Indian Act.

The appellant, a Wet'suwet'en Indian, was charged with fishing without a licence contrary to the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations.

He argued that the licensing scheme infringed his aboriginal rights under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that a band by-law applied to the river.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the river was not part of the reserve, so the band by-law did not apply.

While the mere requirement of a licence did not infringe the appellant's aboriginal rights, the mandatory conditions attached to the licence did constitute a prima facie infringement that the government failed to justify.

Because the unconstitutional conditions were integral to the licence and not severable, the licence itself was invalid.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant's acquittal was restored.

The plaintiff Indian Band brought a trespass action in the Federal Court against the defendant Indian Band regarding the use and occupation of a reserve, alleging the Crown breached its fiduciary and statutory duties.

The defendant Band moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction under section 17(3)(c) of the Federal Court Act, as the dispute involves conflicting claims to an obligation owed by the federal Crown, and the claim is based on 'laws of Canada' including the Indian Act and the federal common law of aboriginal title.