Pierre Lachance

The appellant, a Mohawk, was charged with fishing without a licence in Lake St. Francis, contrary to the Quebec Fishery Regulations.

He argued that he was exercising an aboriginal right to fish for food protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that aboriginal rights can exist independently of aboriginal title, and that the appellant had demonstrated an aboriginal right to fish for food in the area.

The Court found that this right had not been extinguished, and that the regulatory scheme, which subjected the right to unstructured ministerial discretion, constituted an unjustified infringement.

The appellants, members of the Algonquin people, were convicted of entering a controlled harvest zone without paying a motor vehicle access fee, and one appellant was convicted of fishing without a licence.

They argued they were exercising an aboriginal right to fish.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that aboriginal rights can exist independently of aboriginal title and that the failure of the French colonial regime to legally recognize such rights did not extinguish them.

The Court found the appellants had an aboriginal right to fish for food in the zone.

The federal fishing licence requirement was found to be an unjustified infringement of this right, but the provincial motor vehicle access fee was held to be a valid user fee that did not infringe the right.

The National Energy Board granted Hydro-Québec licences to export electricity to the United States, subject to conditions requiring environmental assessments of future generating facilities.

The appellants challenged the licences on grounds of inadequate cost-benefit analysis, procedural fairness, breach of fiduciary duty, and infringement of aboriginal rights.

The respondents cross-appealed the imposition of the environmental conditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board properly conducted its review, owed no fiduciary duty in its quasi-judicial capacity, and did not infringe aboriginal rights.

Furthermore, the Court found that the Board acted within its jurisdiction under the National Energy Board Act and the EARP Guidelines Order by considering the environmental effects of future facilities and imposing the conditions.

The appellant was acquitted of unlawfully practising medicine.

The respondent appealed the acquittal by way of trial de novo under section 75 of the Summary Convictions Act.

The appellant argued that this procedure violated his right against double jeopardy under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an appeal by way of trial de novo by a prosecutor from an acquittal is essentially a new trial and violates section 11(h).

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.