Leslie J. Pinder

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.

The Beaver Band surrendered the mineral rights on its reserve to the Crown in 1940 to lease for its benefit.

In 1945, the Band surrendered the reserve to the Crown to sell or lease.

The Crown subsequently sold the land to the Director of The Veterans' Land Act, inadvertently including the mineral rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown did not breach its fiduciary duty regarding the surrender and sale of the surface rights.

However, the Crown breached its fiduciary duty by transferring the mineral rights and failing to correct the error when it learned of it.

The action was not barred by limitation periods as the running of time was postponed until the Band discovered the facts.

The plaintiffs applied for a rehearing of an appeal regarding amendments to pleadings in an aboriginal claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada had previously dismissed the appeal, allowing the amended pleadings to stand because they were not clearly invalid.

The plaintiffs sought a pronouncement on further issues considered by the Court of Appeal, such as the nature of the action and the necessity to establish the continued existence of the Indian nations.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application, finding it premature to pronounce on these questions without evidence at this early stage of the action.