The appellant challenged a conviction for selling salmon caught under an Indian food fish licence, arguing that the prohibition on sale infringed an aboriginal right protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The majority held that aboriginal rights are identified by asking whether the claimed activity is an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the specific aboriginal group prior to contact with Europeans.
Applying that framework, the Court held that exchange of fish for money or other goods was incidental rather than integral to the Sto:lo’s distinctive culture and therefore not constitutionally protected.
The appeal was dismissed, with important dissents proposing broader approaches grounded in livelihood, continuity, and historical use of resources.
