Joanne R. Lysyk

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 contractor successfully bid on a road building contract and entered into a contract with the province.

The contractor alleged it lost money due to errors in the specifications and construction drawings prepared by the respondent engineering firm.

The contractor sued the engineering firm and the individual engineers for negligent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the engineering firm owed a duty of care to the contractor, as the firm knew contractors would rely on its tender documents.

The contract between the contractor and the province did not negate this duty.

However, the Court dismissed the claim against the individual engineers, finding that merely affixing a professional seal to the documents was insufficient to establish a duty of care.

The appellant was charged with historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and daughters, with the charges laid up to 30 years after the alleged events.

The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings under the Charter, finding the pre-charge delay violated the appellant's rights to fundamental justice and a fair trial, and rejecting the complainants' explanation for the delay without hearing viva voce evidence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that pre-charge delay alone does not automatically undermine trial fairness and that the trial judge erred in making credibility findings without a proper evidentiary basis.