A political analysis of: R. v. Badger

Type :

Term papers

Pages :

6 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

05/10/2009

Category :

Law & contracts

Sub category :

Constitutional law

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 12.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction
The overlap of the rights presented within treaty No.8 and the NRTA
Several principles that had to be kept in mind during litigation
Differences between the rights of the Indians in the NRTA and those previously listed in Treaty No.8
The [ti]right of access[ti]
Testimony by historian John Foster
The case of Mr. Badger
Relevant treaty and statutory provisions

Abstract

The supreme court of Canada stands as the highest level of court in Canada and is the final stop for all cases which have been appealed from the superior provincial courts. Unlike the lower courts, the supreme court of Canada seats up to nine judges with each appeal seating a minimum of 5 justices to interpret the facts of a case. The Supreme Court's decisions have a strong influence on the social and political aspects of Canadian society as the precedents set within the court apply to all lower courts within the country. The case of R. v. badger [1996] was one appeal that dealt with Aboriginal hunting rights protected under section 35 (1) of the Canadian constitution. This case was significant as it dealt with whether Aboriginals retained their right to hunt on privately owned land outlined within treaty (8). Furthermore this case examined weather the changes made to Aboriginal rights by the Alberta Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA) was reasonable and plausible limitations.
Before examining the course of litigation, one must gain an understanding of the charges laid against the three appellants. The appellants in this case were: Wayne Clarence badger, Leroy Steven Kiyawasew and Ernest Clarence Ominayak. All three appellants were Cree status Indians from Alberta whom were covered under treaty No.8. The three men were charged with infractions under the wildlife act as their treaty right to hunt did not extend to privately owned property.