Open Collections

UBC Press

Appendices and References for 'Ghost Dancing with Colonialism: Decolonization and Indigenous Rights at.. 2011

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Woo_Appendices.pdf
Woo_Appendices.pdf [ 437.52kB ]
Woo_Appendices.pdf
Woo_References.pdf
Woo_References.pdf
Woo_References.pdf [ 166.34kB ]
Woo_References.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0108019.json
JSON-LD: 1.0108019+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0108019.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0108019+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0108019+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0108019+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0108019.ris

Full Text

     i Appendix 1 Chronological List of Cases Studied  THE FULL TEXT OF ALL CASES IS AVAILABLE FROM THE CANADIAN LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE AT http://www.canlii.org. Please note this information was provided courtesy of the author and does not necessarily reflect UBC Press editorial guidelines.  1. Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29, 1983 CanLII 18. 2. Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 1984 CanLII 25. 3. Jack and Charlie v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 332; 1985 CanLII 8. 4. Dick v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 1985 CanLII 80. 5. Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387, 1985 CanLII 11. 6. R. v. Horse, [1988] 1. S.C.R. 187; 1988 CanLII 91. 7. R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 1988 CanLII 31. 8. Canadian Pacific Limited v. Paul, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 1988 CanLII 104. 9.  Roberts v. Canada, 1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 189 CanLII 122. 10. Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2. S.C.R. 574; 1989 CanLII 34. 11. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Nova Scotia (Royal Commission into Marshall Prosecution), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 788; 1989 CanLII 39. 12. R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 1990 CanLII 96. 13. R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 1990 CanLII 103. 14. R. v. Sparrow , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 1990 CanLII 104. 15. Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 1990 CanLII 11. 16. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 1991 CanLII 75. 17. R. v. Jones, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 110; 1991 CanLII 31. 18. Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 1992 CanLII 110. 19. Williams v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877; 1992 CanLII 98. 20. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (National Energy Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 1994 CanLII 113. 21. R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299; 1994 CanLII 86. 22. Native Women’s Assn. of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; 1994 CanLII 27. 23. Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995]1 S.C.R.3; 1995 CanLII 145. 24. Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) [1995] 4  S.C.R. 344; 1995 CanLII 50. 25. R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 1996 CanLII 236. 26. R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; 1996 CanLII 245. 27. R. v. Lewis [1996] 1 S.C.R. 921; 1996 CanLII 243. 28. R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 1996 CanLII 216. 29. R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 1996 CanLII 160.      ii 30. R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672; 1996 CanLII 159. 31. R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821; 1996 CanLII 161. 32. R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 1996 CanLII 169. 33. R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 1996 CanlII 170. 34. Goodswimmer v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 309; 1997 CanLII 371. 35. Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119; 1997 CanLII 344. 36. St. Mary’s Indian Band v. Cranbrook, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 678; 1997 CanLII 365. 37. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3. S.C.R. 1010; 1997 CanLII 302. 38. R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 1998 CanLII 782. 39. Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 1998 CanLII 793. 40. R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R.393; 1999 CanlII 673. 41. R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 1999 CanLII 679. 42. Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 1999 CanLII 687. 43. R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; 1999 CanLII 665. 44. R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; 1999 CanLII 666. 45. Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 2000 SCC 31 (CanLII). 46. R. v. Catcheway, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 838; 2000 SCC 33 (CanLII). 47. Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII). 48. Musqueam Indian Band v. Glass, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633; 2000 SCC 52 (CanLII). 49. R. v.Deane, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 279; 2001 SCC 5 (CanLII). R. v. Deane, 129 O.A.C. 335, [2000]; 2000 CanLII 17047 (ON C.A.). 50. Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 2001 SCC 33 (CanLII). 51. Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746; 2001 SCC 85 (CanLII). 52. Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 2002 SCC 31 (CanLII). 53. Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816; 2002 SCC 54 (CanLII). 54.  Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245; 2002 SCC 79 (CanLII). 55. R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; 2003 SCC 43 (CanLII). 56. R. v. Blais, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236; 2003 SCC 44 (CanLII). 57. Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 2003 SCC 45 (CanLII). 58. Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 2003 SCC 55 (CanLII). 59. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII). 60. Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII).      iii 61. R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005 ] 2 S.C.R. 220; 2005 SCC 43 (CanLII). 62. Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388; 2005 SCC 69 (CanLII). 63. R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686; 2006 SCC 54 (CanLII). 64. McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. Gods Lake First Nation [2006] 2 S.C.R. 846; 2006 SCC 58 (CanLII). 65. R. v. Morris, [2006]  2 S.C.R. 915; 2006 SCC 59 (CanLII).       iv Appendix 2: Judicial Careers  Judge Birth place Educatio n Ag e at ca ll Career/ practice Teaching Age at bench Hon. Rolland Almon Ritchie Halifax    King’s College, B.A. Oxford, B.A. 24 NS Halifax practice WW II Commission on Newfoundlan d’s terms of union Dalhousie 49 SCC Hon. Robert George Brian Dickson*  Yorkton, SK  U. Manitoba , LL.B. 24 MB Insurance WW II Winnipeg firm U. Manitoba 47 Man.Q .B. Hon. Jean Beetz Montreal   U. Montreal , B.A. LL.L. Rhodes Scholar, B.A. 24 ? QC Trudeau adviser U Montreal 46 Que.C .A. Hon. Willard Zebedee Estey (son of James W. Estey, SCC) Saskatoon U. Sask. B.A., LL.B. Harvard, LL.M. 28 ON WW II Toronto firm U. Saskatche wan 54 Ont. H.C. Hon. William Rogers McIntyre Lachine, QC  U. Sask. B.A., LL.B. 29 SK BC WW II Victoria firm  49 B.C.S .C. Hon. Julien Chouinard Quebec City   Laval, B.A., LL.L.Rho des Scholar, B.A. 24 QC Quebec City firm Quebec Deputy Minister of Justice U. Laval 46 Que.C .A. Hon. Antonio Lamer* Montreal U. Montreal , LL.L. 24 QC Law practice  U. Montreal 36 Que.C .A. Hon. Bertha Wilson Scotland   U. Aberdeen , M.A., 35 NS 36 ON 1949 emigrated Toronto firm  52 Ont.C .A.      v Teacher cert. Dalhousi e U., LL.B.  Hon. Gerald Eric Le Dain Montreal   McGill U., B.C.L. Lyon. 25 QC 44 ON WW II Montreal firm Le Dain Commission McGill U. Osgoode Hall 51 F.C.A . Hon. Gérard V. La Forest Grand Falls, NB    St. Francis Xavier,U NB, B.C.L. Rhodes Scholar, B.A., Yale, LL.M., J.S.D. 23 NB Federal Department of Justice Assistant Deputy Attorney General Corporate adviser  UNB U. Alberta  55 N.B.C .A. Hon. Claire L’Heureux-Dubé Quebec City U. Laval , LL.L. 25 Family break Quebec firm at 42 Taught family law at Barreau 46 Que.S .C. Hon. John Sopinka Broderick, SK, to Hamilton at eight U. Toronto, B.A., LL.B. 27 ON + Toronto Argonaut Toronto law firm (called to six bars) Osgoode U. Toronto  55 SCC Judge Birth place Education Age of cal l Career practice Teaching Age at bench Hon. Charles Doherty Gonthier Montreal Bac. Paris McGill U., B.C.L. 24 QC Montreal firm   46 Ont. S.C. Hon. Peter de Carteret Cory Windsor U. Western Ontario, B.A. Osgoode, LL.B. 25 ON RCAF pilot Holden Murdoch  49 Ont.H .C. Hon. Beverley McLachlin* Pincher Creek, AB U. Alberta, M.A., 26 AB 28C Edmonton, Fort St. John, UBC 38 B.C.C o. Ct.      vi LL.B. Vancouver firms Hon. William Stevenson Edmonton U. Alberta, B.A., LL.B. 24  Edmonton firm Last PC case U. Alberta 41 Alta. DistC t. Hon. Frank Iacobucci Vancouver UBC, Cambridge U., B.Com., LL.B., Diploma Internati onal Law, LL.D. 33 NY firm Deputy Minister of Justice Consultant to federal and provincial government s U. Toronto 51 F.C. Hon. John C. Major Mattawa, ON Loyola U., U. Toronto, B.Com., LL.B. 27 AB Calgary firm Inquiries re bank failures  60 Alta. C.A. Hon. Michel Bastarache NB? U. Moncton, B.A. U. Montreal, LL.L. U. Ottawa, LL.B., Nice,  public law 33 NB 38 AB 39 ON Legal translator Life insurance VP Ottawa and Moncton firms  U. Moncton U. Ottawa 48 N.B.C .A. Hon. William Ian Corneil Binnie Montreal McGill U., B.A. Cambridge U., LL.B., LL.M. U. Toronto, LL.B. 27 GB 28 ON 36 YK  I C. J. counsel, Tanzania Associate Dep. Min Justice, McCarthy Tetreault Osgoode Hall 59 SCC Hon. Louise Arbour Montreal U. Montreal, B.A., LL.L.  24 QC 30 ON Law clerk, SCC Law Reform Commission Women’s prison inquiry Int. Crim. Ct. Osgoode Hall, York 40 Ont.H .C. Hon. Louis LeBel College 23 Quebec firm U. Ottawa, 45      vii Quebec City des Jesuits, B.A. U. Laval , LL.L. U. Toronto, LL.M. U. Laval D.E.S. U. Laval  Que.C .A. Hon. Marie Deschamps Repentigny U. Montreal, LL.L. McGill, LL.M. 23 Montreal firms  38 Que.S .C. Judge Birth place Education Age at cal l Practice   Age at bench Hon. Morris Fish Montreal McGill U., B.A. U. Paris, B.C.L. 26 QC 30 PEI 36 AB Montreal Star journalist Montreal firm Cliche Commission  McGill U., U. Ottawa, U. Toronto  50 Que.C .A. Hon. Rosalie Silberman Abella Stuttgart, to Toronto at four U. Toronto, B.A., LL.B. 26 ON Litigation , Toronto Marshall Inquiry  U. Toronto 30 Ont. Famil y Ct. Hon. Louise Charron Sturgeon Falls, ON Carleton U., B.A. U. Ottawa, LL.B. 26 ON Ontario firms Assistant Crown Attorney U. Ottawa 37 Ont.C .A. Hon. Marshall Rothstein Winnipeg U. Manitoba, B.Com., LL.B. 26 MB Quebec firms  U. Montreal 49 F.C. Average age   26   47       viii Appendix 3: Judicial Reasoning Profiles 3.1 Decisions re Indigenous Rights  Judge * appointed Chief Justice  written judgments in bold Appoint ed Retired Number of decision s Colon ial Post- colon ial Hon. Rolland Almon Ritchie 05-05-1 959 31-10-1 984  1  9.0  5.0 Hon. Robert George Brian Dickson 26-03-1 973 30-06-1 990  12  8.0  5.6  *18-04-1984     4  8.5  6.0 Hon. Jean Beetz 01-01-1 974 10-11-1 988  9  8.2  4.9      2  9.0  3.3 Hon. Willard Zebedee Estey 29-09-1 977 22-04-1 988  7  8.9  4.8     1  9.5  6.8 Hon. William Rogers McIntyre 01-01-1 979 15-02-1 989  8  8.7  4.3 Hon. Julien Chouinard 24-09-1 979 06-02-1 987  5  8.6  5.1 Hon. Antonio Lamer 28-03-1 980 06-01-2 000  36  8.6  4.6  *01-07-1990    11  8.8  4.5 Hon. Bertha Wilson 04-03-1 982 04-01-1 991  11  7.6  5.8     4  6.8  7.2 Hon. Gerald Eric Le Dain 29-05-1 984 30-11-1 988  4  8.8  4.1 Hon. Gérard V. La Forest 16-01-1 985 30-09-1 997  26  8.5  4.4     7  8.4  4.8 Hon. Claire L’Heureux-Dubé 15-04-1 987 01-07-2 002  41  8.0  4.8     7  8.9  4.8 Hon. John Sopinka 24-05-1 988 24-11-1 997  23  8.5  4.5     3  7.8  5.4 Hon. Charles Doherty Gonthier 01-02-1 989 31-07-2 003  27  7.9  5.2     2  6.5  6.8 Hon. Peter deCarteret Cory 01-02-1 989 01-06-1 999  29  8.4  4.5     5  8.8  4.4 Hon. Beverley McLachlin 30-03-1 989    44  8.0  4.8  *07-01-2000    15  7.8  5.1 Hon. William Stevenson 17-09-1 05-06-1  4  8.5  3.5      ix 990 992     2  9.5  2.5 Hon. Frank Iacobucci 07-01-1 991 30-06-2 004  38  8.4  4.7     6  7.6  5.8 Hon. John C. Major 13-11-1 992 25-12-2 005  36  8.3  4.7     2  8.5  4.0 Hon. Michel Bastarache 30-09-1 997   21  7.7  5.3     4  7.8  6.0 Hon. William Ian Corneil Binnie 08-01-1 998   21  7.6  5.4     4  7.5  6.3 Hon. Louise Arbour 15-09-1 999 30-06-2 004  14  8.0  5.2 Hon. Louis LeBel  07-01-2 000   17  7.7  5.2     2  9.5  3.2 Hon. Marie Deschamps 07-08-2 002   7  7.4  5.4 Hon. Morris Fish 05-08-2 003   4  7.1  5.1 Hon. Rosalie Silberman Abella 30-08-2 004   2  6.5  4.4 Hon. Louise Charron  30-08-2 004   2  6.5  4.4 Male average:      8.2  4.8 Female average :     7.4  5.0 Total judgment average :     8.0  4.9 3.2: Decisions re Non-Indigenous Rights Judge * appointed Chief Justice  Appoint ed Retired Number of decisi ons Coloni al Postcolo nial Hon. William Rogers McIntyre 01-01-1 979 15-02-1 989  1  1.5  10.0 Hon. Antonio Lamer* 28-03-1 980 06-01-2 000  6  4.5  8.9 Hon. Bertha Wilson 04-03-1 982 04-01-1 991  2  2.0  9.8 Hon. Gérard V. La Forest 16-01-1 985 30-09-1 997  4  3.8  9.1 Hon. Claire L’Heureux-Dubé 15-04-1 987 01-07-2 002  8  4.6  9.0 Hon. John Sopinka 24-05-1 988 24-11-1 997  3  4.2  9.0 Hon. Charles Doherty 01-02-1 31-07-2  8  4.8  4.8      x Gonthier 989 003 Hon. Peter deCarteret Cory 01-02-1 989 01-06-1 999  4  4.9  9.1 Hon. Beverley McLachlin* 30-03-1 989   8  4.6  9.0 Hon. William Stevenson 17-09-1 990 05-06-1 992  1  4.0  7.5 Hon. Frank Iacobucci 07-01-1 991 30-06-2 004  7  5.3  8.6 Hon. John C. Major 13-11-1 992 25-12-2 005  5  4.8  8.7 Hon. Michel Bastarache 30-09-1 997   4  4.3  9.1 Hon. William Ian Corneil Binnie 08-01-1 998   5  4.8  8.7 Hon. Louise Arbour 15-09-1 999 30-06-2 004  3  4.7  8.8 Hon. Louis LeBel  07-01-2 000   3  4.0  8.8 Male average:      4.2  8.5 Female average :     4.0  9.2 Total judgment average :     4.2  8.7  Appendix 4: ASSESSMENT OF REASONING See the explanation of the study’s methodology in Chapter 4 for selection criteria. The 62 cases included in the basic study resulted in 96 judgments. Three decisions released in December 2006 raised the number of cases assessed to 65, including 100 judgments.  A particular judge or judges was identified as the author of 88. Both majority and minority judgments were assessed. (Note that minority judgments may either concur for different reasons or dissent.) Some judgments were assessed separately for non-Indigenous parties. Lac Minerals had no Indigenous parties. Because of significant differences in historical experience, the Secession Reference was assessed separately for Quebec, Canada and Indigenous peoples. No evaluation is considered conclusive or authoritative.  As discussed in the text, all are necessarily subjective. To avoid excessive length, individual case profiles in 4.3 do not identify all evidence that might be used to illustrate each indicator.  Caveat: - Interpretations are subjective. -Notes do not represent all evidence that might be used to illustrate each indicator. -Focus is on issues related to protecting Indigenous rights, not Canadian administrative concerns.       xi THE FULL TEXT OF ALL CASES IS AVAILABLE FROM THE CANADIAN LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE AT http://www.canlii.org A4.1 Summary A4.1.1 Summary for Non-Indigenous Parties :  Case Judge Year Colonia l Postcolo nial 1 10. Lac Minerals  Sopinka 1989 1.5       10 2  La Forest .5       10 3 11. N.S.(A.G.) v. N.S. (Marshall) La Forest 1989 3  9.5 4 18. Oldman River Society La Forest 1991 4       10 5  Stevenson 4  7.5 6 30. Smokehouse Lamer 1996 7  7 7  L’Heureux- Dubé  3  7 8  Mclachlin 3  9 9 39. Secession Reference (Canada) COURT 1998 5       10 10 (Quebec) COURT 10  8 11 44. Marshall II (Fishermen) COURT 1999 7  7 12 45. Firearms Reference (Alberta) COURT 2000 6  6.5 13 48. Musqueam v. Glass          ( renters) McLachlin 2       10 14  Gonthier 0       10 15  Bastarache 0       10 16 49. Deane (Deane) McLachlin 2001 6       10   Average : 3.9  8.7         xii A4.1.2 Summary for Indigenous Parties  Case Judge Year Colonia l Postcolo nial 1 1. Nowegijick v. The Queen Dickson 1983 9  5 2 2. Guerin v. The Queen Wilson 1984 7.5 6.8 3  Dickson 8  6.3 4  Estey 9.5  6.8 5 3. Jack and Charlie  Beetz 1985 10  3.5 6 4. Dick v. The Queen Beetz 8  3 7 5. Simon Dickson 8  7.5 8 6. Horse Estey 1988 9  1.3 9 7. Francis La Forest 9  2 10 8. Canadian Pacific v. Paul COURT 9  5.5 11 9. Roberts Wilson 1989 4  10 12 11.N.S.(A.G.) v. N.S. (Marshall) La Forest 6  6 13 12.Horseman Wilson 1990 7  6.5 14  Cory 9  4 15 13. Sioui Lamer 6.5  7.5 16 14. Sparrow Dickson and La Forest  9  5 17 15. Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band Dickson 8  6.5 18  Wilson 8.5  5.5 19  La Forest 8.5  5.5 20 16.  Bear Island Foundation COURT 1991 10  2.3 21 17. Jones Stevenson 9  2 22 18. Oldman River Society Piegan La Forest 10  3 23  Stevenson 10  3      xiii 24 19. Williams v. Canada Gonthier 1992 5  6.5 25 20. Quebec v. Canada (N.E.B.) Iacobucci 1994 7  5.5 26 21. Howard Gonthier 9  4 27 22. Native Women’s Association Sopinka 8  6.5 28  L’Heureux- Dubé  8  8 29  McLachlin 9  6.5 30 23. C.P. v. Matsqui Indian Band Lamer 1995 8  4 31  La Forest 9  3.4 32  Major 8  4 33  Sopinka 5.5  6.5 34 24. Blueberry River Indian Band Gonthier 7.5  6 35  McLachlin 5.5  6.5 36 25. Badger Sopinka 1996 10  3.25 37  Cory 10  3.5 38 26. Nikal Cory/ 10  3.5 39  McLachlin 10  3.5 40 27. Lewis Iacobucci 10  3 41 28. Van der Peet Lamer 10  2.5 42  L’Heureux- Dubé  9  5 43  McLachlin 6.5  6 44 29. Gladstone Lamer 9  4 45  La Forest 9  3 46  L’Heureux- Dubé  8.5  5 47  Mclachlin 9  4.5 48 30. Smokehouse Lamer 1996 10  3      xiv 49  L’Heureux- Dubé  7  4  Summary for Indigenous Parties cont.  Case Judge Year Colonia l Postcolo nial 50  Mclachlin 7  4 51 31. Pamajewon Lamer 10  2 52  L’Heureux- Dubé  10  2 53 32..Adams Lamer 10  4 54  L’Heureux- Dubé  10  4 55 33. Côté  Lamer 10  2.5 56 34. Goodswimmer (F.C.A.) Stone J.A. 1997 3       10 57 35. Opetchesaht Major 9  4 58  McLachlin 6.5  6.5 59 36. St. Mary’s Indian Band Lamer 10  3 60 37. Delgamuukw Lamer 9  3 61  La Forest 9  3 62 38. Williams McLachlin 1998 6  7 63 39. Secession Reference COURT 9  2 64 40. Sundown Cory 1999 8  4 65 41. Gladue Cory andIacobuc ci  7  7 66 42. Corbiere McLachlin and Bastarache  10  5.5 67   L’Heureux- Dubé  10  5.5 68 43. Marshall Binnie 9  6 69  McLachlin 9  3.5 70 44. Marshall II COURT 9  4.3      xv 71 45. Firearms Reference COURT 10  1 72 46. Catcheway Iacobucci 2000 4  7 73 47. Lovelace Iacobucci 9  6 74 48. Musqueam v. Glass McLachlin 4  9 75  Gonthier 4  9 76  Bastarache 4  9 77 49. Deane (ON.C.A.) (George) McLachlin 2001 9  4 78 50. Mitchell v. M.N.R.     Mc Lachlin 10  3 79  Binnie 10  4.5 80 51.Osoyoos Iacobucci 8  6 81  Gonthier 9  4.5 82 52. Kitkatla  LeBel 2002 9  3 83 53. Ross River Dena Bastarache 10  3.3 84   LeBel 10  3.3 85 54. Wewaykum Binnie 7  9 86 55. R. v. Powley COURT 2003 7.3  8 87 56. R. v. Blais COURT 8  4.5 88 57. Wewaykum II ALL 8 10  2.5 89 58. Paul Bastarache 7  6 90 59. Haida Nation McLachlin 2004 6.5  8 91 60. Taku River Tlingit McLachlin 9  3 92 61.Marshall/Bernard McLachlin 2005 9  2.75 93   LeBel 9  3.75 94 62. Mikisew Cree Binnie 4  6   Average :      xvi 8 4.9   A4.2 Case Profiles  The following profiles summarize the evidence collected in support of the assessments discussed in Ghost Dancing with Colonialism. The name of the judge who wrote the judgment is in bold type. The names of supporting judges follow. Numbers in parentheses refer to illustrative (pages). Numbers in square brackets refer to illustrative [paragraphs].  The profiles published with the book italicize characteristics that were underlined in the original research notes.  Caveat: interpretations are subjective. Notes do not represent all evidence that might be used to illustrate each indicator. The focus is on issues related to Indigenous rights rather than on internal Canadian administration. Characteristics described in previous profiles are not always repeated.   1. Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29 Dickson J. (Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer JJ.)  Main points: “Treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians” (36); “income” is personal property; s. 87 of the Indian Act exempts both property and persons on a reserve from taxation.  Judge: no Indigenous input. Parties: imposed: “Mr. Nowegijick is an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act” (31); “Indians are citizens” (36); presumes inclusion in the Canadian polity. Venue: language and Indigenous identity not on record. Issues: tax assessment imposed. Procedure: public process, many interveners. Evidence: assumptions: e.g., of Canadian citizenship and residence; proof: basic facts of case agreed by both parties. Concept of law: imposed: no evidence of consent to the regulatory scheme; no Indigenous participation in the enactment of the laws applied. Reasoning: declaratory: “Indians are citizens” (36); “the overwhelming weight of authority holds” (38);  principled: “exemptions to tax laws should be clearly expressed” (36); principles from case law. Values: the sentiment that “Indians are citizens” is egalitarian, but it is declared without proffering any proof to this effect or recognizing the Indigenous right to choose nationality. Perspective: case confirms respect for Indigenous difference, but the framework of the protection offered is highly ethnocentric. The possibility of equal national respect is not even considered.      xvii  Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total   9.0   5.0       xviii 2.1 Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. Wilson J. (Ritchie, McIntyre JJ.)  Main Points: The Crown has a fiduciary obligation re Indian reserves rooted in aboriginal title, not in s. 18 of the Indian Act. (348-8) Damages for breach of this duty are based on actual loss. (357).  Note: -strong support for Musqueam right to consent to decisions affecting their well-being.           -“paternalistic attitude” allowed to excuse conduct of Indian Affairs officials]  Parties: imposed identity: as “indians” under the Indian Act, not challenged by Musqueam -identified in Indian affairs terms as band – own ID (see Musqueam web site) not explained Self-determined: to the extent that they drafted their own statement of claim Venue: Foreign: Colonial frame of reference (331-40) Issues: Imposed: Issues addressed in analysis are products of judge’s constitutional conception. Mutually negotiated: Action initiated by Musqueam:-Their decision not to question the Indian Act & to phrase issues in colonizers’ terms (340). Initiation of action asserts personhood of “Indians” Procedure: Egalitarian/participatory: -interveners present; strong censure for Crown use of political trust doctrine which was not pleaded & was withdrawn according to public statements of ministry when discovery on the issue was requested. (353) Evidence: Assumed: B.C. had jurisdiction over reserves to pass to Canada in 1938. (349) Proof:-oral evidence accepted- Musqueam witnesses alive & cross examined; -Musqueam assertions corroborated by Indian affairs documentation Concept of law: Imposed: -accepted imposed character of constitution (though this not contested by Musqueam) -accepted “paternalistic attitude” of Indian Affairs as defence against deceit & tort damages. Consensual: based fiduciary obligation on Aboriginal title & right to consent. (349) Reasoning: Declaratory – Crown sovereignty assumed. “I think”; rights based on “historic reality” (349) -Accepted trial damages despite setting out evidence that reduction in value was ill founded because “I do not think it is the function of the court to interfere”. Did not acknowledge the denial of institutional responsibility this represented. Principled: Careful to set our principles relied on at most points. “This discretionary power must be  exercised on proper principles and not in an arbitrary fashion” (350)      xix Values: Authoritarian –acceptance of imposed constitutional framework.  Egalitarian –  “the Crown…does hold the lands subject to a fiduciary obligation to protect and preserve the Band’s interest from invasion or destruction” (350)  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Constitutional understanding ignores the fact of colonialism  Respect: Strong support for the requirement for consent & consultation  (346-7)   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge       Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties     Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Litt le 3. Venue       Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues      Imposed Some Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure   In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence    Assumptions Some Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual  Yes 8. Reasoning   Declaratory Some Principled explanation Yes 9. Values      Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total 7.5  6.8       xx 2.2 Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. Dickson J. (Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer JJ.)  Main Points” The equitable obligation that founds the Crown’s liabilty is not a trust, but a fiduciary duty rooted in the fact that Indian title is inalienable except to the Crown.  Note: -Wilson emphasized prior occupation as the core of aboriginal title and consent to disposition. Dickson focused on the colonially imposed inalienability except to the Crown. -Dickson also made sweeping unsubstantiated statements about English legal history.  Evidence – Assumptions -no proof to support view that “Crown first took” fiduciary responsibility in Royal Proclamation 1763. (Slightly different wording would alleviate the problem) - no evidence to support claim that “..the Crown’s original purpose in declaring the Indian’s interest to be inalienable otherwise than to the Crown was to facilitate the Crown’s ability to represent the Indian’s dealings with third parties” (383)[34] No proof for “The concept of fiduciary obligation originated long ago in the notion of breach of confidence, one of the original heads of jurisdiction in Chancery”or “the purpose of the surrender..etc. (380) [35] Concept of law: Imposed – relied on B.C.’s 1938 transfer of Indian reserves to Canada (380) [33] Reasoning: -Hybrid re Indian Title – based on prior occupation, but justified with Canadian precedent rather than consensual legality. Declaratory – reliance on inaccurate/questionable characterizations of St. Catherine’s Milling & Amodu Tijani (377-9) –not based on need for consent by Musqueam for constitutional inclusion. Principled - recognized categorization problems characteristic of paradigm change but did not identify cause. Noted problem of applying “inappropriate terminology drawn from general property law” (382) Perspective: Ethnocentric – accepted colonial analysis by Chief Justice Marshall.  Used a cite that clearly explains the impairment created by colonization, but accepted it without question rather than repudiating it. (378). -accepted view that title to Indian reserves was transferred by BC to Canada in 1938. Respect –upheld prior occupation of land as source of Indian Title as recognized in Calder.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge       Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties     Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Litt le 3. Venue       Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues      Imposed Some Mutually determined Some      xxi 5. Procedure   In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence    Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning   Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values      Authoritarian Some Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total    8 6.3        xxii 2.3 Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. Estey J.  Main Points:  Indians have been constrained by statute to act through the agency of the Crown & the Crown has a duty to act within the mandate assigned to them by the Indians.  If the Crown breaches this duty it will be liable for the actual losses caused.  Notes: Well meaning, but unaware of basic facts of Indigenous existence. - Tried to be egalitarian by applying law of agency to “Indian Agent” as if this official was agent of    “Indians” rather than an agent of the colonizing government. The result is logical inconsistency. -This reasoning was not pleaded so it was not well researched. It is inconsistent with agency law. See James I. Reynolds, “A Breach of Duty: Fiduciary Obligations and Aboriginal Peoples (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2005), 81. Issues: Imposed Law of Agency not raised by the parties. Mutually negotiated: as other judgments Procedure:  Irregular:  Issue of agency introduced though no evidence it was argued by the parties. Evidence: Assumptions: Same as Wilson and Dickson. No evidence Musqueam voluntarily chose Indian Affairs to seek a lease.  Supported by proof:  As for Wilson, Dickson & trial judge. Concept of law: Imposed:  Accepted imposed constitution & Indian Act. Consensual: Law of agency is based on consensual principles Reasoning: Authoritarian:  Imposed an analysis not argued by the Musqueam. Assumed validity of Indian Act despite lack of Musqueam participation in Canadian  political insitutions Egalitarian: Dealt with fact that “surrender” was not a release in the sense of general law. Attempt to be egalitarian in ascribing same meaning to law of agency. Reasoning: Declaratory: adopted Trial judges’ unprincipled approach to damages. Neither party pleaded agency. Principled: -attempted to find a principled basis for the decision. (394) Perspective: Ethno-centric – Like the others, presumed validity of the Canadian constitution and Indian Act.  -They reflect “a strong sense of awareness of the community interest in protecting the rights of the native population” !!!  (392) Relied on “agency as prescribed by Parliament” without noting that Musqueam did not participate voluntarily & had no right to vote at the time the lease was signed. Respect: Desire to reason in terms of agency shows support for consensual processes.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Litt le 3. Venue      Foreign Yes Own language/culture      xxiii language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed  Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Some Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Some Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total 9.5  6.8       xxiv 3.  Jack and Charlie v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 332. Beetz J.  (Dickson C.J. Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard JJ.)  Main Point : Provincial regulation of deer hunting does not interfere with Indigenous religious motives.  Parties: “Indians” under Indian Act Issues: Charged Procedure -open court, pleadings. Case decided on the basis that there was no evidence to refute an argument that was not raised until the Supreme Court level. Concept of law: No Indigenous participation in making the laws imposed. Perspective: Ethnocentric: own world view imposed. Place:  Fact that world view was different was acknowledged but not accommodated.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total    10 3.5    4. Dick v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309. Beetz J.  (Dickson C.J., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard JJ.)  Main Point: A provincial law that does not single out Indians for special treatment or discriminate against them is a law of general application within the meaning of s.88 of the Indian Act and applies even if it regulates an Indian qua Indian.[35-6, 45]  Reasoning: Declaratory source of law Values: Accepts law alien to accused   Colonial  Postcolonial      xxv 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total    8     3       xxvi 5.  Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387. Dickson C.J. ( Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson, LeDain JJ.)  Main Points: “the right to hunt to be effective must embody those activities reasonably incidental to the act of hunting itself”[31] Under s.88 of the Indian Act provincial legislation cannot restrict native treaty rights. -“It should be noted that the language used by Patterson J…reflects the biases and prejudices of another era in our history.  Such language is no longer acceptable in Canadian law and indeed is inconsistent with a growing sensitivity to native rights in Canada.” [21] “Given the serious and far-reaching consequences of a finding that a treaty right has been extinguished, it seems appropriate to demand strict proof of the fact of extinguishment in each case where the issue arises.”[38]  Parties: Indian Act identity is imposed. Micmac treaty identity is chosen/negotiated Venue: Micmac agreed disputes should be tried in British courts 1752 treaty s.8 [6] Issues: RCMP charge Evidence: Proof: required for argument concerning commercial hunting [30]; treaty termination [34]; hunting on highway[39, 41].  Blood relationship need not be shown - political relationship sufficient [42-5] Concept of law: Imposed: s.88 governs rights but treaty respected. “Under s.88 of the Indian Act, when the terms of a treaty come into conflict with federal legislation, the latter prevails, subject to whatever may be the effect of s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. Reasoning: Principled reliance on precedents Values: Authority of Canadian laws over “Indians” assumed, but treaty respected. Tendency to rely on case precedent rather than articulated principle. Eg. re treaty [50-51]  Perspective: Authority of Canadian laws over “Indians” assumed, but treaty respected.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes      xxvii 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    8  7.5         xxviii 6.  R. v. Horse, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. Estey J. (Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, L’Heureus-Dubé JJ.)  Main Point: Extrinsic evidence is not to be used to interpret a treaty unless there is ambiguity. (12)          Treaty 6 did not give “Indians” a right to hunt on private lands. Issues: - charge Evidence: Assumptions: ultimate objective of Treaty (9) Concept of law:  Imposed UK parliament source of legality for Canada (5) Reasoning:  Declaratory reliance on precedents without identifying principle (8, 11) Perspective: Ethnocentric: unilateral interpretation of Treaty 6;only considered internal Euro Canadian law; presumes “Indians” have no rights unless requested from the British [47] NB –Though he cited principles, he did not apply them.  Use of evidence was extremely biased.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Litt le 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Total    9  1.3   7.  R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025. La Forest J.  (Dickson C.J. Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, LeDain L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.)  Main Point: Unless the federal government expresses explicit intent to cover a field completely, federal and provincial legislation that does not conflict can exist side by side and apply on a reserve.       xxix “Enclave theory” (not explained) already rejected in Cardinal v. AG Alberta [1974] S.C.R. 695. [4]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total    9    2       xxx 8.  Canadian Pacific Limited v. Paul [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654. (Dickson C.J. Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain)  Main Principle: Railway rights over property must be founded on laws and documents?  A railway may be granted a permanent injunction against a property owner over whose land it has a right of way.  Note: By contrast, Delgamuukw at [119] says  aboriginal title is “more than the right to enjoyment and occupancy”  Evidence: Assumptions: Status of land undetermined but right of way found. Validity of  “servitude” not considered. Only previous case supports claim that inalienability was intended to protect Indians. (17) Proof: facts related to documentation (30) Concept of law: Imposed decided based on preference.(23) Ignored lack of Indigenous political rights. Consensual: consideration of legislative law making. Reasoning: Declaratory  found CP had a right of way, though couldn’t tell who had title.(para 19) Did not explain why permanent injunction was appropriate.(41-42) Principled: Quest for legal rules eg. Ellensborough Park (though superficial in this area) Values: Authoritarian acceptance of orders. Egalitarian attempt to apply principles consistently to both parties.  Perspective: Ethnocentric considered entirely according to Anglo-Canadian paradigm. eg. Ellensborough Park. Why did the Malecite block the crossing? No consciousness of others perspective. Respect: Tried to uphold Guerin principle of fiduciary respect. (17)   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Some      xxxi Total    9   5.5        xxxii 9. Roberts v. Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322. Wilson J. (Dickson C.J., Beetz, Lamer, Le Dain JJ.)(Le Dain took no part in the judgment)  Main Point: The law of aboriginal title is Federal common law.  Note: Both parties relied on the Canadian legislative scheme to assert rights to a reserve both claim.  This apparent acceptance of the imposed colonial regime alters the character of the assessment significantly.  Judge: judge neutral between parties who accept the system Parties: parties accept Indian Act regime Venue: parties appear to have adopted a foreign culture Issues: issues not externally imposed Procedure: public process Evidence: evidence of case law supplied Concept of law:  imposed by act in which parties had virtually no say Reasoning: principles explained. Relies on statutory grant Values: relies on statutory dictate Perspective:  not in issue as both adopt Indian Act & Canadian legislative scheme.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total    4  10        xxxiii 10.1 Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2. S.C.R. 574. Sopinka J. (McIntyre J.) dissenting in part  Main Principle : “Not all obligations existing between the parties to a well-recognized fiduciary relationship will be fiduciary in nature”. (59)  See also La Forest (49).  Judge:  Peer: member of same culture Parties: Self-determined  through incorporation Venue:  Own Language & Culture Issues: Mutually Negotiated through the  pleadings Procedure:  Public: normal due process Concept of law: Consensual: based on contract & equity.  All agree to use legal system to solve dispute re legal interpretation & test for Breach of confidence (La Forest (43) Values: Egalitarian:  dependency or vulnerability as basis of fiduciary obligation [PC] (19) reasonable person test (27) Perspective: Ethno-centric: relevant parties determined purely on basis of colonial perspective. Ignores Indigneous rights that may be involved. Respect: usages to be established by those familiar with them, not experts [unlike later Van der Peet “integral to a distinctive culture test”]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric .5 Respect for others Yes Total 1.5  10  10.2 Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2. S.C.R. 574. LaForest J. (Wilson, Lamer JJ.)  Main Principle: Damages can be payable for the misuse of information gained in confidence.      xxxiv  Values: Egalitarian: parties  may get a reference if they cannot agree on evaluation of adjustments. Perspective: Ego centric:  Failure to articulate Lac’s point of view. Respect: Custom should be defined by parties & experts. Legal significance by courts.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Some Respect for others Yes Total .5  10  11.  Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Nova Scotia (Royal Commission into Marshall Prosecution), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 788. La Forest J. (Lamer, Wilson, L’Heureux-Dubé. Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin JJ.)  Main Principle: The scope of a Commission’s powers is defined by the terms of reference in the order by which it was established.  Judge: Alien for Marshall, peer for others. Parties: For Marshall, imposed Canadian citizenship. For the Commission imposed by order, but self-determined in the sense of being a product of their society. Venue: Foreign for Marshall. Own for A.G. Issues: Both contributed. Procedure: fair. Evidence:  Supported Concept of law: Imposed: reasoned on the basis of the Commission’s authority under the “Order in Council” that set it up, rather than on accountability to the people under democratic procedure. (5) Reasoning:  principled Values: Authoritarian: The Commission to protect cabinet members from public scrutiny; belief that security is served by secrecy. Egalitarian: The Commission justified its order on the basis of      xxxv public interest; excluded questions re individual views because hearing from all required to set record straight. Perspective: Ethnocentric reliance on the order, no reference to Marshall’s cultural parameters. Respect : Supports Commission’s discretion and allows it to define its own terms.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity Some Self-determined Some 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory   Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Yes Cross-cultural respect/recognition Yes Total (Commission)  3.5  9.5   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory   Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Yes Cross-cultural respect/recognition  Total (Marshall)     6   6        xxxvi 12. 1  R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901. Wilson  J.  (Dickson C.J. & L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.) dissenting  Main Principle: Canadian and provincial legislation should be interpreted in a way that respects the terms of the treaty that was signed.  Issues: Imposed by a charge Evidence: Assumptions:  No proof to support agreement that Canada could regulate; no evidence regulations are necessary for species preservation.  Proof:  much support for historical findings Concept of law: Imposed : supports expanded interpretation without suggesting renegotiation of treaty to protect conservation interests. Consensual:  strong support for treaty terms Values: Egalitarian: “it seems to me somewhat disingenuous to attempt to justify any unilateral “cutting down of hunting rights” by the use of terminology connoting a reciprocal process in which the contracting parties engage in mutual exchanges of promises.”(15)  Perspective: Ethnocentric:  allows judicial examination in each case to determine purpose of hunting or fishing. Respect:  Authors cited include reports of interviews with elders; liberal construction, as understood by Indians (5)   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total    7   6.5        xxxvii 12.2  R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901. Cory J.  (Lamer, La Forest & Gonthier JJ.) Main Principle:  Parliament of the colonizing party can unilaterally extinguish treaty rights.  Note: Heavily influenced by need to conserve Grizzly bears. [Hard cases make bad law.  He could see no alternative paradigm for bear protection. Claimed bears relied on man for protection!!!(25) when they would actually do better if there were less humans. Found Horseman “acted in good faith” (26) but upheld conviction because he thought others would take advantage.(25). Ignored lack of Indigenous political rights. On extinguishment issue, began by setting out 2 legal principles(20) but did not apply them. He looked only at the words of the transfer agreement itself and how they were viewed by Dickson J and previous courts (21-22) giving no evidence to show how it was interpreted by Indigenous people.  This case itself suggests that they saw it as having no effect on their rights because they argued that a treaty could not be unilaterally changed.(22)  Evidence: Assumptions: no evidence of discussion with “Indians” re. imposition of government regulation. Proof – reference to Ray’s work on existence of treaty – lacking on extinction Concept of law: Imposed:  “Federal government” can unilaterally alter treaty rights (24) Reasoning: Declaratory: tends to rely on authority of precedents rather than on the principles they contain. Principles: identifies some principles at the beginning re treaty.  Perspective: Ethnocentric: assumes his concepts of “government” and “province” are the only ones applicable. Believes settler legislation protects bears without questioning effect of habitat reduction Respect:  Authors cited include reports of interviews with elders.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Some      xxxviii Perspective Total    9     4         xxxix 13.  R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025 Lamer J. (Dickson C.J., Wilson, La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin JJ.)  Main point: the capacity of Indigenous nations to enter treaties is recognized. “It is up to the Crown to prove that its occupancy of the territory cannot be accommodated to reasonable exercise of the Hurons’ right.” (25) Treaties should be interpreted according to the common intent of the parties.  Parties: imposed: “Indians” under Canada’s Indian Act; Self-determined: Huron identity acknowledged. Issues: imposed: charge, framed by Quebec officers; mutually determined: through right to defence. Evidence: assumptions: Indians are better versed in negotiations today (7); jurisdiction is territorially defined; purpose of English and French was to control territory by force (8); past constitutional conceptions conformed to modern ones; proof: primary documents used to support many findings. Concept of law: imposed:  “The treaty gives the Hurons the freedom to carry on their customs and their religion” (22; these rights existed precontact).  consensual: consent needed to extinguish treaty (20). Reasoning: declaratory: Indians “not on a par with a sovereign state”(9) principled: interprets on the basis of historical context and perception of the parties . Values: egalitarian  emphasis on common understanding of the parties; respects “Indian” perspective (7). Perspective: ethnocentri: use of  unicultural texts and authorities ; anachronistic imposition of modern, unilaterally determined legislative framework; accepts derogatory racist characterizations (7, 9); characterises British practice as “exploration & settlement”; examines document as “a treaty under the Indian Act” (anachronistic) (11); only considers Crown’s reasons for treaty commitment (11); subordinates Indigenous rights to recreational practices. respect: recognizes differing views but doesn’t consider capacity of signing “chiefs” (16); states examination must be from different points of view depending on group; considers Indigenous ceremonies as evidence of a treaty.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Some Supported by proof Yes      xl 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Some Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Some Respect for others Yes Total   6.5   7.5      xli 14.  R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075. Dickson C.J. and La Forest J. (McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka JJ.)  Main principle: s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is meant to ensure that Aboriginal rights are taken seriously. “Aboriginal and treaty rights may be overridden if the government is able to justify the infringement.”(citing Badger) [74]  Issues: mutual: issues raised by both parties. Evidence: assumptions: no evidence to prove that the regulations function to conserve the resource (1113); “never any doubt that sovereignty,” legislative power, and underlying title reside in the Crown (1103); proof: use of anthropologist and regulatory history; supports 1973 change in policy with document (1104). Concept of law: imposed: sovereign can extinguish an Aboriginal right with clear and plain intent (1099); consensual: Constitution is a statement of the will of the people (1106). Reasoning: declaratory: does not explain why extinguished rights cannot be revived, just lists similar cases (1091); declares conservation uncontroversial (1113) and consistent with Aboriginal practice (1114); guidelines pulled from a hat (1115)  principled: Nowegijick etc. (1107). Values: authoritarian: concept of Canadian “sovereign power” (1109); Ignores imposition of British rule on Musqueam throughout; dictates guidelines (1115)  egalitarian: reasoned response to both parties. Perspective: ethnocentric: Aboriginal rights are sui generis (takes self as standard) (1112); ignores Aboriginal perspective in favour of internal Canadian analyses, such as Slattery (1109-10)  respect: penal trial not best venue for determining Aboriginal rights (1095); need to be sensitive to sui generis nature of Aboriginal rights and perspectives (1112); for the Musqueam, fishery is an integral part of their culture (1099); details of allocation left to those with expertise (1116).   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes      xlii 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect for others  Yes Total   9.0   5.5      xliii 15.1  Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85. Dickson C.J.    (different reasons)  Main Principle: ‘Her Majesty” in the Indian Act refers to both the federal and provincial Crowns. The Indian Act prevents money owed to a band by the province from being garnished.  Note: reliance on “social purposes of the Indian Act” rather than representations made at time of treaty.  Parties:  “as long as Indians not affected qua Indians…” (18) Issues: Imposed:  garnishment order.  Mutually determined: able to raise arguments Concept of law: Consensual: Nowegijick principle primordial. Imposed: Canada’s ability to impose its laws unquestioned. Reasoning: Principled: eg set out  & explained Nowegijick (11) Values: Egalitarian: understands by analogy to treaty  Perspective: Ethnocentric: effect of Crown actions can be overestimated (18) Respect: may not be easy to see as seen by Indians (11); explained arguments of both parties (12) for different perspectives (13); understanding of sui generis (17-8); “Historic occupiers” of  North American lands & European Colonizers (18)   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total    8   6.5  15.2 Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85. Wilson J (Lamer, L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.)       xliv Main Principle: Fundamental questions about the relationship between the courts and government should be resolved by the legislature.  Concept of law: Consensual: for legislature to reform law of garnishment Imposed: unquestioned reliance on Blackstone & old cases.  Note Blackstone’s definition. Reasoning: Principled: emphasised need to explain why Garnishment Act did not apply (22)  [evaluation as for La Forest]      xlv 15.3  Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85. La Forest J. (La Forest, Sopinka. Gonthier JJ.)  Wilson J.’s reasons concur.  Main Principle: Provincial Garnishment Act should not be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the broad social purpose of tax exemption in the Indian Act.  Evidence: Assumptions: no evidence to support claim natives accepted British sovereignty (31); ignores wealth contributed by natives to Canada & only sees the reverse. (31-32); no evidence re motivation for requirement for Minister’s consent –assumes protection(38); no evidence to support rejection of Indian perception of Crown as indivisible entity.(40)  Proof: Treaty 8 cited (35) Concept of law: Imposed: ignores non-participation of “Indians” in the development of  legislation Values: Authoritarian: Parliamentary intent for statute prevails over Indigenous understanding (40) Perspective: Ethnocentric view of history; assumes Indigenous acceptance of sovereignty. Respect: explanation of Nowegijick  principle.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Some Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total 8.5   5.5       xlvi 16. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 579. THE COURT: Lamer C.J., La Forest, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson JJ.  Main Principles: Aboriginal title was extinguished by the Robinson-Huron Treaty & subsequent arrangements.  “An appellate court should not reverse the trial judge in the absence of palpable and overriding error which affected his or her assessment of the facts”  Issues: Indigenous attempt to wrestle with the foreign legality that had been imposed. Procedure: So little explanation of their thought processes that the result has an in camera effect far in excess of declaratory law. The Court refused to subject the issues raised to a public analytical process so the reader cannot tell which “arrangements” subsequent to the Robinson-Huron Treaty constituted surrender of the right in the Court’s opinion. Evidence: Evidence was not used to demonstrate the legal findings Concept of law: Imposed: presumption that Anglo-Canadian law is the only relevant consideration Reasoning: Declaratory: no explanation or facts to support their finding that there had been an aboriginal right to the land or how it was surrendered or extinguished by arrangements subsequent to the Robinson-Huron Treaty.  No explanation of the grounds for declaring that Ontario had a better claim to the land than the Temagami. Principled: standard grounds for overturning trial findings of fact mentioned. Values: Authoritarian: basically declares a state of affairs  Perspective: declaration that the issues were purely factual, though applying their own frames of Reference; acceptance of small treaty annuities and reserves in return for a huge tract of land. -patronizing pretense at liberality through rejection of the trial finding that there was no Aboriginal right at the time of the treaty followed by a refusal to define that right because it had been extinguished by unspecified  “arrangements”. Presumes colonial culture has managerial power. (See Katherine Biber, “Being/Nothing: Native Title and Fantasy Fulfilment” (2004) 3 Indigenous L.J. 1).   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes      xlvii 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Litt le 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Total    10  2.3      xlviii 17.  R. v. Jones, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 110. Stevenson J. ( La Forest, L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci JJ.)  Main Point: The belief that Canadian law is inoperative on reserves is a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact.  Notes: Accused were in over their heads and did not make strong arguments.  The Court missed an opportunity to set out egalitarian principles and relied on institutional force. Post colonial reasoning could have pointed out that the procedures used by the band council did not make it possible for them to demonstrate that they had the support of the majority of the community for what was, in effect, a constitutional change.  Procedure: Unequal: 5 governmental interveners supporting Ontario against a small band. Evidence: Assumption: No evidence to support the regulatory scheme applied. Concept of law: Imposed: Ignored evidence showing the Band did not consent to application of Canadian law. Reasoning: Declaratory: no explanation offered to distinguish mistake of fact from mistake of law. Contradictory character of Council’s actions not commented upon eg. partial renunciation of Canadian authority.  Insufficiency of a Band Council Resolution for renouncing jurisdiction not explained. ie method used did not meet International Standards per Western Sahara. Values: Authoritarian: Relied on Canadian state power, rather than explaining the principles that legitimate state power. Egalitarian: Assuming the Band wished to be considered Canadian, they were treated the same?  Perspective: Ethnocentric:  Court did not give an articulate response to an obvious bid for self government. Respect : accepted request not to make statements adversely affecting Indian self- government, though this provided the court with an easy escape.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Some 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual      xlix Law 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation  9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Some Total    9     2       l 18.1 (a) Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3. La Forest J. (Lamer C.J., L’Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci JJ.)  Main Point: A private party may compel a government ministry to comply with guidelines put in place by the legislature.  Note: Principle of case is decolonizing.  Effect for Piegan was not. Indigenous opinion was completely ignored and we do not even know what they wanted though their rights were affected by the dam.  Parties:  Society created its own legal identity. Issues: Imposed:  no evidence that the Piegan were represented either by the environmental plaintiff or the governments concerned. Procedure: Biased: In a matter that obviously affected the Piegan, there was no provision for their representation. Public, Equal: Indigneous organizations allowed to participate as interveners. Evidence: Assumptions: perspective on what was relevant determined uniquely by colonial society. Proof:  facts considered proven by documentation. Concept of law: Imposed: Court imposed its concept of the “correct” interpretation of laws and guidelines without considering Indigenous or public opportunities to express or withhold consent. Reasoning: Though principles were relied upon, there was obviously a wide range of opinion concerning how  they applied Values: deference to the intention of the legislature, but Piegan opinion was completely ignored.  Perspective: Ethnocentric:  Piegan & Indigenous perspectives completely ignored.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes      li 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Total (Piegan)    10     3  18.1 (b) re the Oldman River Society  Social order voluntarily accepted by members of the majority society. Concept of law: Imposed: Highest court imposed its interpretation. Consensual:  Citizens have a right to challenge officials & lower courts.  Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total re Society    4  10  18.2 Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport) Stevenson J.  Main Point: The Crown is not bound to follow a law unless expressly required to do so or violation would frustrate the purpose of the act.  The trial judge’s discretion should be supported and those undertaking litigation should be prepared to accept some responsibility for the costs.  Note: His evaluation re the Piegan would be the same.  For the Oldman River Society his broader interpretation of Crown Immunity, his insensitivity to the obstacles faced by any group of citizens that tries to question state action and his objection to the award of solicitor-client costs suggest that his reasoning might be considered more authoritarian and less postcolonial.   Colonial  Postcolonial      lii 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Some Total re Society    4   7.5       liii 19.  Williams v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877. Gonthier J.  ( La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson JJ.)  Main Principle: The situs of UI benefits is the same as that of the employment that generated them. The situs of intangible property is determined on the basis of connecting factors.  Parties: Imposed: No treaty adherence to Anglo-Canadian regime. Concept of law: Consensual: Band & Williams participated in UI program. Imposed: reasons on the basis of paternalistic protection rather than contractual term for tax exemption. Values: Egalitarian: looks for consistency & predictability in the law.  Perspective: Respect: Situs must be interpreted in relation to the purposes of the Indian Act & the Income Tax Act, not the conflict of laws rules.(11)   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect for others Yes Total    5 6.5       liv 20. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (National Energy Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159. Iacobucci J. (Lamer C.J. La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major JJ.)  Main Points: When deciding whether to grant an export licence it is appropriate for the Board to consider the environmental impact and to require further studies when the impact is knowable.  Notes: Case is difficult to rate because the status of  James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Ac,  S.C. 1976-77, c.32 is not clear. Does this case suggest that Canadian governments can avoid fiduciary obligations by delegating decisions to boards? Though the decision appears to be very fair regarding the issues before it, the Cree appear to have been completely excluded from the decision making processes concerning developments that profoundly affect them.  The project is relying on the power of the state to proceed over their objections.  Judges: No evidence of Cree on Board whose decision was upheld. Parties: Meaning of James Bay Act is unclear. Venue:  Disagreement between Cree & Canadians over Act. Issues:  Project to export electricity seems to be Canadian initiative protested by Cree. Concept of law: The Cree obviously do not consent to the project Reasoning:  Principles for founding the decision are explained. Values: Egalitarian Cree values seem to take a back seat here.  Their reasons for objecting to the licence are camouflaged by the process & the shaping of the issues. Perspective: Ethnocentric: presumption that Canadian procedures are acceptable even though the agreement that founds Canadian authority is being litigated. Respect: Cree arguments seem to be explained. The requirements for environmental & cultural review were reinstated.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Some 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes      lv 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    7   5.5        lvi 21.  R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299. Gonthier J.  (Lamer C.J., La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci JJ.)  Main Principle: Bear Island reliance on trial findings of fact reiterated.  Evidence: Assumptions: relied on 1923 treaty.  Presumably this was part of the Court record but, unlike Sioui, text was not provided so the reader cannot verify the Court’s account of it. (Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done!!)  Reliance on opinion of a man with no legal training that 2 signers were legally educated. Also “mandate” of commissioners not reproduced though it was the basis for a defence argument. Concept of law: Imposed: Did not consider whether the people relinquished “all privileges” with informed consent. Reasoning: Declaratory: Little or no attention to principles like Nowegijick “perception” & Sioui requirement for express words to extinguish. Values: Authoritarian: Did not consider whether the members of the band gave their informed consent to giving up their rights.  Perspective: Ethno/ego centric:  Prefer’s trial judge’s understanding of treaty to that of accused. Completely unaware of the tensions between Indigenous traditionalists and assimilationists.  If I had been the judge, I would have sent it back for retrial so that missing facts could be supplied. Dismissed Indigneous perceptions of difference.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others      lvii Total    9    4       lviii 22.1 Native Women’s Assn. Of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627. Sopinka J. (Lamer C.J. La Forest, Gonthier. Cory, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main point: There was no evidence to show that the organizations selected by Canada to represent Indigenous peoples were male dominated.  Note: From a postcolonial perspective, the real problem with the funded organizations is that they were selected by Canada, not by the people they were taken to represent.  Funding NWAC would not solve this problem.  The Catch-22 is that it is unlikely that an unorganized entity could carry an argument against the colonial character of Canadian practice.  Parties:  Self-determined: membership in organization. Issues:  Imposed: “Walsh J. framed the issues”. Huge state funding. Mutually determined: Brought action based on own analysis. Evidence: Assumption: Canadian organizational format is able to represent Indigenous women. No examination of Indigenous organizational concepts.[fault in pleadings?] Evidence: Looked at the structure & policies of the organizations involved (though superficially) Concept of law: Imposed: Sees “government” as holding wide discretion.  No consideration of those not represented in organizations. Values: Authoritarian: Government has no duty to consult anyone, let alone everyone, by referendum (XLVII) Egalitarian: Government obligation to listen to particular class is same as for public at large. (LII)  Perspective: Ethnocentric: “the Aboriginal community of Canada” [Said’s othering, colonial construction of a previously non-existent community] Minister of Constitutional Affairs says organizations chosen represent men & women[external opinion] Only Euro-Canadian organizational concepts considered. Opinion of minister is relevant to determining how representative the chosen organizations are. Respect : Considered interveners’ positions though counterbalanced by strong support for state prerogative.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture      lix 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Some Total    8 6.5        lx 22.2 Native Women’s Assn. Of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627. L’Heureux-Dubé J.  Main Point: A government may be held to a positive obligation to provide a platform for expression in some instances. Note: She supported Sopinka’s reasons except for his interpretation of  her reasons in Haig so the result is the same except she makes a strong place for other points of view which supports a consensual concept of government.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Yes Total    8    8  22.3 Native Women’s Assn. Of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627. McLachlin J.  Main Point: A government may choose and fund its advisors without regard for the Charter.  Note: She supported Sopinka’s reasons but found consultations of the kind considered in this case differ from the electoral issue in Haig. It was not necessary to consider evidence of Charter violation. The only proof provided to support the legality of this principle in Canada was an American case! This approach is declaratory and deprived of the egalitarian considerations canvassed by Sopinka.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes      lxi 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others some Total    9 6.5        lxii 23.1 Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3. Lamer C.J. (Cory J.)  Main Point: A tribunal must be legally structured so its members are reasonably independent of those who appoint them.  Notes: Does not understand the interrelated nature of life in a small community. One gets the feeling that some excuse will be found to invalidate the proceeding.  Parties: Imposed under the Indian Act, self-determined acceptance of a colonial legal regime. Issues: Imposed: Case decided on argument not in pleadings or made in argument at trial. [111] Procedure: Bias: Issue of bias raised in oral argument, not in originating notice of motion. Evidence: Assumption: A reserve where everyone may be related can function like a large impersonal state.  Proof: Textual references, comparison to municipal regimes under provinces but decided here without a concrete example of how the tribunal would function in practice. Concept of law: Imposed: presumption that federal or provincial appointment solves the problem of bias for someone external to the culture. Values: Authoritarian: presumes neutral standard is possible. Despite appeal to the principles of natural justice, they were violated by relying on an argument that was not properly raised in prior courts denying the bands a proper right to reply.  Perspective: Ethnocentric: based entirely on Canadian law, Parliament’s intent, Indian Act etc.; assumes bands have no “governmental experience” unless using Anglo-Canadian institutions[43]; doesn’t see neutrality principle proposed was not followed by Canada when adjudicating Indigenous rights.[95]; assumes that federal appointment to tribunal would solve problem of “independence” & that “security of tenure” may solve problem of influence on a reserve that may be cash strapped with few employment opportunities.  Would there be enough tax assessment cases on a reserve to merit permanent appointments? Analysis seems out of touch with reality.[101] Does not grasp the interconnectedness of life in a small community. Respect: Parliament’s objective was to facilitate development of Aboriginal self-government[18]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien Yes Peer decision      lxiii decision-maker 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for others Some Total    8 4       lxiv 23.2  Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3. La Forest J.  Main Point: Technical legal issues should be determined by a tribunal with the required expertise.  Note: Agrees with Lamer & Major: Dismiss the appeal with costs. Values: Declaratory/Authoritarian : no explanation of why he thinks the band lacks expertise. Perspective:  Ethnocentric: presumes views of dominant culture are the only ones that count.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation  9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for others Some Total     9   3.5 23.3 Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3. Major J. (McLachlin J.)  Main Point: “When a fundamental issue of lack of jurisdiction is raised as the only issue, the respondent should not be compelled to proceed needlessly to the appeal tribunal”[140] [150]  Note:  No account taken of the major difference between the Indigenous situation & the precedent used. Evidence: Assumption: Board has no expertise on property law ; composition of tribunal is unknown as is the potential decision. Concept of law: Imposed: Colonial legality interpreted to deny an Indigenous forum. Reasoning: Principled:  Principles applied carefully set out. Values: Authoritarian: Parliament’s intent to grant jurisdiction      lxv  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Assumption Board has no expertise on property law   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for others Some Total    8     5        lxvi 23.4 Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3. Sopinka J.  (L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci JJ.)  Main Points: An appellate tribunal can only reverse the Trial judge’s exercise of discretion if no weight or insufficient weight was given to relevant considerations. Without knowledge of the operational reality of a tribunal’s by-laws a reasonable person cannot be informed about how they function.  Concept of law: Though colonial legality applied, support for the Band tribunal created a forum for their ideas.  Consensual: party must have a fair chance to answer, but tribunal independence  was not pleaded or argued.  Perspective: Ethnocentric: entirely Anglo-Canadian approach. Respect: self-government policy is relevant to the entire exercise of judicial discretion. [114] Noted decision made on an argument not before the Bands. Application of Nowegijick  principles. Provisions aimed at maintaining “Indian” rights should be interpreted in a broad manner.[114]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Some Respect for others Yes Total 5.5  7.5        lxvii 24.1  Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) [1995] 4  S.C.R. 344. Gonthier J.  (La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka JJ.)  Main Points: Indian title in reserves is sui generis so common law principles of property are not helpful. The intention of the parties should not be frustrated.  Note: application of limitation period; “full & informed consent’ standard.  Issues: Imposed legal conceptual framework, but able to file pleadings Evidence: Assumption: presumed Indigenous intent could be determined from words of the surrender and the record prepared by the Indian Agent.[9, 10] Trial judge did not find the band gave “full, free and informed consent to the surrender of the mineral rights”[85] Concept of law: Imposed: accepted Indian Act regime. Consensual: “intention-based approach” [7] founded on “full and informed consent” [4] Reasoning: Principles underlying most reasoning set out but conceptual framework declared. Values: Authoritarian: imposed a conceptual structure that was not pleaded by either party Egalitarian: legitimacy based on “full and  informed consent” [4]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Presumed surrender drafted by Indian Affairs showed “Indian” intent. Respect/place:  Focus on “Indian” intent.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Some Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Some Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Some Respect/place for others Yes Total 7.5    6      lxviii       lxix 24.2 Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada, [1995] 4  S.C.R. 344. McLachlin J. (Cory & Major JJ)  Main Points: -A deliberately executed and statutorily authorized surrender should not be overturned on the basis of no evidence. The surrender provisions of the Indian Act are intended to ensure that the intention of the Indian bands with respect to their interests in their reserves will be honoured.  Note: Her interpretation of the Indian Act as protection to ensure that the Band’s intent is honoured is postcolonial in spirit.  It is not supported by proof that this was the actual intent when the measures were implemented.  Evidence: Proof: insists on proof of band’s intent & on revocation of 1940 surrender [81-5] Reasoning: Declaratory: no evidence to show that purpose of Indian Act is to honour band intent. Principled: very Values: Egalitarian; “full, free and informed consent” standard [85] insistence on compliance with statutory scheme, objection to unilateral changes by the Crown[88]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: deference to statutory scheme that band did not participate in forming Respect/place: Indian Act interpreted to protect Band’s right to consent to actions taken [83] Distinguished “a legal finding based on his reading of the wording ” from evidence of  band’s intent.[86]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Some Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Some Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Some Respect for others Yes Total 5.5  6.5       lxx 25.1  R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771. Sopinka J.  (Lamer C.J.)  Main Point: Treaty 8 was merged in the NRTA.  The enactment of new constitutional provisions does not imply the amendment of earlier provisions.   Note:  contradiction - says ambiguities should be resolved in favour of the Indians & the integrity of the Crown should be upheld, but does not attempt to see Indigenous points of view.  Procedure: Biased: Crown given new trial to meet analytical scheme. Badger & Kiyawasew were not. Evidence: Assumption: conservation legislation was passed before the treaty so it was “clearly understood” that rights under the treaty were subject to the legislation.  No evidence offered to show actual understanding.[11] Concept of law: Imposed: belief that treaty can be unilaterally altered by one party’s legislation. Consensual: to the extent that Cory’s explanation of a treaty was adopted Reasoning: Declaratory: eg used Horseman to say NRTA extinguished right to hunt on Crown land [29] Principled: quest for principles in precedents. Values: Authoritarian: validated the harassment represented by use of penal charges to define treaty rights. Perspective: Ethnocentric: presumption that legality belongs only to settler society Place for other: attempt to see NRTA as continuing treaty   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Litt le 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some      lxxi Total    10 3.25        lxxii 25.2  R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771. Cory J. (La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci JJ.)  Main Point: The hunting rights confirmed by Treaty No. 8 were modified by para. 12 of the NRTA though the right to hunt for food on unoccupied land continued. Legislation can limit a treaty right if justified according to the test set out in Sparrow.  Note: Despite highly colonial profile, he articulated an attempt to see what “the Indians understood”.  Procedure: Biased: Crown got new trial to meet analytical scheme. Badger & Kiyawasew were not. Evidence: Assumption; “as before” limits right to hunt for food. Representations re Treaty 4 & Treaty 6 cited as evidence of promises re Treaty 8 !!! [56] Cree & Dene assumed to know of government regulations in 1899 with  no evidence given to this effect[70] Proof: reference to experts & to evidence of promises made and conditions at time. Concept of law: Imposed: Law by government in which “Indians” had no representation altered treaty. Consensual: cited Judson’s explanation of a treaty [Did he understand it?] Reasoning: Declaratory: Cites himself in Horseman, relying on his own authority rather than on principles for the limitations imposed on the treaty. Principled: fine principles stated [41] but not applied. Judson’s categorization of “Aboriginal rights” and “treaty rights” unevenly applied. Values: Authoritarian: Belief that conservation must be imposed [70] Validated use of penal charges to define legal ambiguities. Egalitarian: Mentioned Aboriginal peoples should be consulted or at least informed re conservation  Perspective: Ethnocentric: purpose of treaty to facilitate settlement of West [& for the “Indians”?] -limitations v. hunting “as before”; -treaty rights may be unilaterally reduced by colonizing state’s NRTA. Respect/Place for others: principles of interpretation [52] “To the Indians, it was an essential element[82];-right to hunt for food “as it is understood by the Indians”[93]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual Litt      lxxiii Law           le 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Litt le 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect for others Some Total    10 3.5       lxxiv 26.1  R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013. Cory J. (Lamer C.J. , La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main Point: “[T]he federal government may validly require aboriginal people to obtain a fishery licence” under provincial regulation. …An invalid act or regulation cannot create an offence”.[CXII]  Note: Appellant argued Crown was “given authority to bind the Crown & assign fishing rights” XXXVIII Appellant’s conviction overturned, but  federal right to regulate affirmed & the band’s right denied. Consideration of “the understanding of the Indians” mysteriously missing though used in Badger written by the same judge & released just three weeks earlier. No explanation for this offered.  Issues: -charge Procedure: Biased: relied on decision of “Law Officers of the Crown” instead of neutral tribunal XLIII Evidence: Assumptions: representations of personal opinion to prove Crown policy[XXIX-XXX, XXXIV];claim re English law since the Magna Carta with 1973 cite.[XXXII];claim right to fish would become meaningless without gvt. regulation[XCVI] control by central authority[CI] Proof. Government provided no evidence to justify licence [CXI] Concept of law: Imposed: accepted declaration of government official as law[ XXXV] Reasoning: Declaratory: over-arching assumption that only Canada had law. Principled: many set out & used Values: Authoritarian:  ignored requirements for democratic legality. Egalitarian:  some lip-service to idea that consultation required re conservation [CX]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: assumed fishing right can be “granted” by the colonizing culture, XXV, XXXVII. Place: Lectured on balancing & sensitivity to others [XCII] but denied band’s jurisdiction   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual      lxxv 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Litt le 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total    10   3.5  26.2  R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013. McLachlin J.  (L’Heureux-Dubé J.)  Main Point: “[T]he state is entitled to impose a licensing scheme on the aboriginal fishing”[CXXII] “The unconstitutionality of a condition of a licence does not…absolve the appellant from the need to obtain a licence.”[CXXIII]  Authoritarian: “The trial judge, the majority of the Court of Appeal, and this Court unanimously have ruled that the state does have the right to require him to obtain a licence” [CXXV] source of authority not explained. Claims State has right to impose its authotity on the basis of its own institutions contrary to Western Sahara reasoning.      lxxvi 27 R. v. Lewis [1996] 1 S.C.R. 921. Iacobucci J. (Lamer C.J.  La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major JJ.)  Main Point: Band by-laws regulating fisheries on a reserve do not extend to an adjacent river.  Note: issues surrounding establishment of colonial jurisdiction ignored. Fine included optional 5 days in prison,  but no requirement to prove law beyond a reasonable doubt.  The fact that judges at various levels disagreed about what the law was & that the by-law was approved by Indian Affairs surely demonstrates that some doubt was reasonable.  Evidence: Assumption of valid Canadian jurisdiction.  No evidence of parties practice during century between establishment of the reserve & the charges. Concept of law: Imposed: no consideration of importance of band anticipation in fisheries regulation. Consensual: some deference to Parliament, but band representation ignored. Reasoning: Declaratory: eg. Crown met fiduciary obligation. Values: Authoritarian: No consideration of the need to enhance democratic processes.  No consideration of need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when incarceration involved. Egalitarian: NOT when asserting equal access to fisheries for original inhabitants & settlers!!!  Perspective: Ethnocentric: only “Parliament’s objective” [77] and Canadian views considered.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total    10    3       lxxvii 28.1Van der Peet v. The Queen, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507. Lamer C.J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main points: the rights protected by s. 35(1) “lie in the practices, customs and traditions integral to the distinctive cultures of aboriginal peoples” that existed prior to contact [48, 60].  Note: Lip-service to Indigenous perspective but not applied; see L’Heureux-Dubé [149]. Van der Peet lost because she did not correctly anticipate the test that she had to meet. No wonder! It was not decided until the case reached the SCC.  Issues: imposed: charge plus new issues developed at both appeal and SCC levels. Procedure: no retrial now that the case to meet is known. Evidence: assumptions: appellant given no chance to seek evidence required by the new test; proof: reliance on trial judges’ findings of fact. Concept of law: imposed: Worcester v. Georgia “power, war, conquest” concept accepted [37]; Lamer made up his own test, then said she did not meet it. Reasoning: declaratory: requirements for test [68, 74], no principle, no source, no example; the “prior to contact” requirement is simply stated based on his own reasoning; McLachlin agreed [247]; principled: e.g., use of Mabo. Values: authoritarian: presumes the judge can make law with no reference to the community concerned. Perspective: ethnocentric: Indigenous rights to be reconciled with “Crown sovereignty” [31, 62]; Canadian-Aboriginal relations seen as relationship between only two cultures [42]; presumes exchange between kin was not really “trade” [87]; mentions principle of considering “aboriginal perspective” and looking at the particular community but does not apply it [49, 69]; relies entirely on professors and “experts” from own society.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some      lxxviii 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others  Total 10.0   2.5         lxxix 28.2  Van der Peet v. The Queen, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507. L’Heureux-Dubé J.  Main point: definition of the nature and extent of Aboriginal rights must be addressed in the broader historical context of Aboriginal reality [106]   Note: some genuine consideration of Native perspective but still imposes external analysis [166];would send back to trial on extinguishment of the right to sell, trade and barter fish,  prima facie infringement and justification by government ; problem with recently devised judge-made law; none of the parties knows the case to meet.  Procedure: would allow retrial. Evidence: assumptions: no evidence to support historical claims, such as Bering bridge theory [106]; Marshall decisions used to prove history, but these  are opinion only. (Marshall C.J. was not a witness to Aboriginal societies at first contact) [107]. Concept of law: imposed: “government” must be able to direct rights for Natives and the rest of Canadian society [122]. Reasoning: declaratory: e.g., time requirement of twenty to fifty years, based on Slattery, not on consensual democratic process [177]. Values: authoritarian: sees law as an exercise in external analysis. egalitarian: strong emphasis on support for Aboriginal perspectives.  Perspective: ethnocentric: sees colonization as an “opportunity to share in the advances of modern civilization” [188]; respect: “significance of these activities to natives” [157]; “taking British sovereignty as the turning point” exaggerates importance for Indigenous peoples [166].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others Yes      lxxx Total   9.0   5.0        lxxxi 28.3  Van der Peet v. The Queen, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507. McLachlin J.  Main points: Aboriginal rights should be defined by “looking at what the law has historically accepted as fundamental aboriginal rights” [227]; British law accepted Aboriginal rights as fundamental [254]; the Crown cannot transfer rights to non-Aboriginal people without Aboriginal consent, without treaty, and without compensation [310].  Evidence: assumption: direct sale of land to settlers was prohibited to ensure a fair exchange [270]; Aboriginal people must prove their right to fish for sport, commercial purposes or even a moderate livelihood  [279]; proof: British common law respected Aboriginal law [267-70]. Concept of law: imposed: assumes legitimacy of colonially imposed system and  assessment of Native law by judges from another culture [279]; consensual: Crown should not be permitted to transfer rights without Aboriginal consent [310]; emphasis on treaty process and negotiation [313]. Reasoning: principled: detailed explanations of all points; principles sought. Values: authoritarian: accepts legitimacy of colonially imposed law [264]  egalitarian: “Aboriginal peoples, like other peoples … ” [251]. Perspective: ethnocentric: view of history [232]; treaties sought to provide Aboriginal peoples with a land base [271]; respect/place: Walters quotation re need to accommodate both legal cultures [232].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Some Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Some Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Some Respect/place for others Yes Total   6.5   6.0       lxxxii 29 .1 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723. Lamer  C.J. (Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main Points:  If an Aboriginal right has no internal limit on its exercise, it may be justifiable for the government to impose a limit. (citing McLachlin in Van der Peet [259]) In order to do this, there must be evidence concerning how and why resource allocations were made, the nature and extent of any Aboriginal right involved and the extent of consultation with Aboriginal groups concerned.  Note: Though the case supports Aboriginal consultation & concern for HOW decisions were made, it ultimately supports the colonization of a previously uncolonized Indigenous resource.  Evidence: Assumptions: “Since the time of the Magna Carta” [67] jurisdiction [73] -conservation seen as an important goal based only on Sparrow’s presumption – no supporting evidence [74] Proof: eg re fishery [49,50] Concept of law: Imposed: Does not question Canadian capacity to govern Indigenous resource Reasoning: Declaratory: Does not explain WHY Anglo-Canadian law should be given priority eg.[66, 7] Principled?: reasoning is based more on procedural precedent eg Sparrow than principles; analogy to Charter analysis – must look at purposes [71] Values: Authoritarian: “governments” must make decisions to allocate rights [65] Egalitarian: Considered consultation, though standard only “cognizant of the views” [84] Perspective: Ethnocentric: “primitive time & setting” [26] “Since the time of the Magna Carta” [67] Respect/Place : minimal impairment  Oakes test. [63]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for Some      lxxxiii Perspective   others Total     9    4.       lxxxiv 29.2 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723. La Forest J.  Main Point: When applying Lamer’s test for Aboriginal rights, a qualitative approach should be taken that  accounts for the character of traditional practices.  Note: couldn’t see similarity between traditional trade practices & offer to trade with the Japanese. The Court gave tacit support for racist trade restraints [all judges]; placed great emphasis on the perspective of the Aboriginal people, but did not notice he had no evidence on which to base his decision & applied an external judgment. {p.44} He would equate regulations and an Order in Council (which has little or no democratic control) with a constitutional provision – all be it that the NRTA in Horseman & Badger was an act of the British parliament.  Evidence: Assumptions: Says “perspective of the aboriginal people” must be relied on then made a decision without any evidence of that perspective to define the accused’s actions  ie Without a Heiltsuk jury Concept of law: Imposed: OIC or regulation can extinguish Aboriginal right [31, 32]; assumed complete regulatory authority [82] Reasoning: Declaratory: supports OIC & regulations over parliamentary process Principled: Understanding of principles is superficial & culturally specific. Values: Authoritarian: Belief Crown should have power to extinguish Aboriginal rights [25]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Implicit assumption Aboriginal nations did not have law or commerce.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased   Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for others  Total     9      lxxxv 3         lxxxvi 29.3 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723. L’Heureux-Dubé J.  Main Point: The native perspective must be taken into account when defining an Aboriginal right.  Note: She would follow Lamer’s analysis and disposition, but her emphasis on the importance of the “native perspective” and on the accused’s definition of the issue makes her approach less colonizing in character, though she is content to maintain an external assessment of the “native perspective”.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Some 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Some Respect/Place for others Some Total 8.5     5   29.4 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723. McLachlin J.  Main Point : When the aboriginal right is to secure the modern equivalent of basic sustenance, evidence must be entered to demonstrate what the sustenance needs are.  Note: No source provided for declaration that the Indigenous right is limited to the modern equivalent of the standard of living at contact. This is an externally imposed issue. No mention made by ANY of the judges of the need to negotiate with the Heiltsuk re management of a resource they evidently controlled prior to contact. Her request for evidence to show the modern equivalent of  basic sustenance does help make a place for Indigenous peoples but Canadians are not limited to a subsistence livelihood.       lxxxvii  Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for others  Yes Total    9 4.5       lxxxviii 30.1 R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672. Lamer C.J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main Point:  When the factual findings at trial are not appealed for palpable or overriding error they must be accepted, though the determination is an issue of law & fact.  Note: Case had the effect of penalizing those who conduct business with Indigenous communities.  Parties: Company determined its own identity. Venue: Foreign for Indigenous, chosen for company. Issues: instituted by a charge Procedure: case to meet not known in advance Evidence: Assumptions: The only way to see things is according to colonial categories Concept of law: Imposed: no evidence that the Indigenous people participated in forming the law Reasoning: Declaratory: Required to meet Van der Peet test, released simultaneous with SCC Judgment. Values: Authoritarian:  No chance for bands’ company to participate in making conservation regulations  Perspective: Cross-cultural respect. Ethnocentric: assumption that aboriginal rights must be defined by customs of the colonial culture .   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total: (Indigenous)    10     3  Assessment for the  non-Aboriginal appellant:      lxxxix  Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total: (Smokehouse)    7     7        xc 30.2 R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672. L’Heureux-Dubé J.  Main Point: Aboriginal rights must be construed on the basis of evidence concerning the history, culture and perspective of the particular native society concerned.  Note: The Indigenous people affected were not represented though the case concerned their rights . **This is the first judgment to look seriously at the way the Indigenous culture concerned was structured and to note that the system of social classification was significantly different. But it still accepts imposed legality. Judge: member of Smokehouse Ltd’s culture Parties: Smokehouse incorporated Issues: Charge – the bands involved were not even interveners Concept of law: Imposed: rights may be extinguished through a series of legislative acts[76] Values: willing to consider other culture on equal basis   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed  Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased   Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total: (Indigenous)    7    4  Assessment for the  non-Aboriginal appellant:  Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes      xci 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total: (Smokehouse)     3     9  30.3 R. v. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672. McLachlin J.  Main Point:  It is not necessary to prove that the way an aboriginal right was exercised in the past was identical to the way it is exercised today. Note: Similar chart to L’Heureux-Dube by a more tersely worded method.       xcii 31.1  R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821. .Lamer  C.J. (La Forest, Sopinka. Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main Point: The rights protected by s.35(1) must be looked at in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, including the history and culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right.  They do not include “a broad right to the use of their reserve land”.  Note:  Stated  the right to self-government was not considered, yet it was obviously avoided. (colonizing!) What happened to “generous, broad liberal” interpretation and the “perspective of the Aboriginal people themselves”? Supposedly incorporated by reference to Van der Peet – but is this enough? Also: reliance on unilaterally designed legal instruments eg Royal Proclamation; refusal to answer the defence raised:  That the bands had “a broad right to manage the use of their reserve lands”.  Procedure: Biased: Decision in February, but reasons rely on Van derPeet released Aug. 21st. Evidence: Assumptions: No evidence to support the assertion of governmental authority over bands Proof: Reference to expert’s evidence Reasoning: Declaratory: Indigenous perception of rights is “at a level of excessive generality”. Perspective: Ethnocentric:   (Ditto “Reasoning”)   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total    10 2  31.2  R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821. L’Heureux-Dubé J.       xciii Main Points:  The proper inquiry focuses broadly upon the activity itself and on the purpose for which it was undertaken, not on the specific manner in which it has been manifested. The Canadian Parliament and, to a certain extent, provincial legislatures have a general legislative authority over the activities of Aboriginal people.  Note: Same profile as the majority judgment. Would she really accept an American inquiry into the purpose for which Canadians exercised jurisdiction?      xciv 32.1 R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101. Lamer C. J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main Points: Aboriginal rights are not dependant on Aboriginal title. “Parliament may not simply adopt an unstructured discretionary administrative regime which risks infringing aboriginal rights in a substantial number of applications in the absence of some explicit guidance” [54]  Procedure: Bias: Case argued before Van der Peet which structured the decision. Evidence: Assumption: minimizing the effect of contact on a culture [46]; assumes academic experts know the culture better than the people it belongs to. Proof: reliance on trial evidence of experts & Chief. Concept of law: Imposed: – no reference to need for Indigenous consent to regulation Reasoning: Declaratory: Reliance on the Court’s constricted view of rights in Van der Peet.[34] [47] Perspective: Respect: rejected argument that only rights recognized by the French regime were protected [33]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    10   4  32.2 R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101. L’Heureux-Dubé J.  Main point: Aboriginal rights are protected by s.35(1) if they have been “an integral part of the distinctive aboriginal culture for a substantial continuous period of time.”[66]       xcv 33.1  R. v. Côté [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139. Lamer C.J. (Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Main Point: Aboriginal rights can exist independently of Aboriginal title. Recognition by French colonial law is not required to prove the existence of an Aboriginal right.  Note: perspective of the “Indians” not mentioned. Serious claim to exclusive title in this case as no evidence that French went there & some evidence that they recognized Algonquins as allies, not subjects.  Looks generous because he was acquitted of the fishing charge, but it was actually a serious loss. How could the European claim be greater than the Algonquin claim if time of contact is the point of assessment?  Procedure: Bias: case to meet not known. Case argued at all levels on the theory that proof of title was necessary. Evidence: Assumptions: boundaries & limits of  New France never defined but jurisdiction assumed. Canada has legal jurisdiction. Proof: reliance on experts Concept of law: Imposed: means of identifying rights decided by the Court itself; “clear & plain intent” accepted to extinguish [52];boundaries of s.88 Indian Act topic of future court discussion[87] Values: declared law of Van der Peet, Sparrow accepted  Perspective: Ethnocentric: “Outaouais region of Quebec”[2] Lack of consciousness of how own conceptual frameworks imposed, especially in its view that the procedure did not prejudice the appellants. Place: Conscious of different frameworks & dealt well with historical difficulties [40-49] Emphasis on Algonquin practice   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled Some      xcvi explanation 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/Place for others Some Total    10   2.5  33.2 R. v. Côté [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139. La Forest agreed, subject to his comparison of the right to a“servitude”.  33.3 R. v. Côté [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139. L’Heureux-Dubé agreed subject to her reasons in Adams.       xcvii 34.  Goodswimmer  v. Canada, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 309. Lamer C.J. (La Forest, L’Heuruex-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major JJ.)  Note: case not heard as appellant withdrew on grounds it was moot. (The non-band member who had been elected Chief no longer held office) Assessment based on the reasoning of the Federal Court of Appeal  implicitly adopted. Both parties are Indigenous and both have been “absorbed into the body politic” of Canada through their acceptance of the Indian Act regime & Canadian institutions.  STONE J.A.  (Strayer, McDonald JJ.A) Goodswimmer  v. Canada, [1995] 2 F.C. 389.  Main Point: The fact that a legislative provision gives rise to absurd results is not sufficient to declare it ambiguous and then embark on a broad-ranging interpretative analysis.[19]  Judge: Though not a peer, is a fellow member of the polity whose laws are used to determine the parties rights.  Position is neutral in relation to both parties. Parties: Both appear to accept Indian Act identity. Venue: Though the language & culture is foreign, both appear to have adopted it. Issues: Mutually determined issue re statute interpretation Evidence: relied on contents of statutes & legislative history Concept of law:  Consensual: Chief elected according to a system that both parties agree to. Imposed: as legislated by parliament & interpreted by Court, majority rule. Reasoning: Principles from case law explained, though source is in declaration of British law. Values:  Egalitarian vote, authoritarian process, analysis  Perspective: Ethnocentricity does not arise as a problem as both parties are functioning within the same legislative culture. Dispute resolved by appeal to mutually agreed authority (the court) rather than by use of force.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual Yes      xcviii Law 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total    3  10       xcix 35.1 Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119. Major J. (Lamer C.J. La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci JJ.)  Main point: Limited, indeterminable rights in reserve land may be granted under s.28(2) of the Indian Act.  Note: Cultural foundation is similar to that of McLachlin’s dissent. It favours postcolonial values by relying on the capacity of the Opetchesaht to consent. However, McLachlin’s analysis demonstrates its weakness and accords much more strongly with egalitarian Indigneous values that emphasize the rights of future generations.  Evidence:  [N.B. this is 18A application] Assumption: Canadian approval to alienate land meant to protect native land base [52];BCR represented opinion of the people Proof: eg. record confirms protracted negotiations. [56] unproven factual assertions to be dealt with at trial[58] Concept of law: Imposed: reliance on an imposed regulatory scheme [56] Consensual: reliance on Band council consent, no claim for unfairness or uneven bargaining power [56] Reasoning: did not dig as deeply as McLachlin Values: Authoritarian: accepted authority of Council with limited temporal mandate to make perpetual alienation. Refused to lift the institutional veil  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Paid no heed to the argument of the Indigenous intervener Respect : Accepted BCR but took it at face value & left future generations subject to colonial intrusion   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total    9     4      c        ci 35.2  Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119. McLachlin J.  (Cory J.)  Main points: Consent of the entire band membership is required to dispose of interests in land for many generations. The “Plain” meaning  of words in a statute must be understood in the context of the legislative purpose.S28(2) of the  Indian Act only applies to commitments shorter than 2 year Band council mandate.[92]  Note: Values applied correspond to international postcolonial norms.  Issues: Indigenous arguments used Evidence: Assumptions:  1) Indigenous land could be legally alienated & 2) proclamation of 1763 “created” a process for doing it [though more likely it replicated practice with commons in England.] Proof: assertions well illustrated by examples Concept of law: Imposed: discussed in terms of Canadian parliament’s or Crown’s intent rather than people’s. Consensual: importance of consent for long-term commitments. Reasoning: Declaratory: founds “Indian” rights on colonial declaration (proclamation) [82] Principled: good at finding principle that binds enactment [eg. Pt. IV] Values: Authoritarian: founds rights on declaratory elements of Canadian law rather than egalitarian principle. Egalitarian: concern for band & future generations’ right to manage their land  Perspective: Respect: strong support for people’s capacity to consent to long-term alienations; sets out Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs’ argument.[96]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Some Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Some Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Some Egalitarian Yes 10. Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for Yes      cii Perspective   others Total 6.5  6.5       ciii 36.  St. Mary’s Indian Band. v. Cranbrook (City) [1997] 2 S.C.R. 678. Lamer C.J.  (La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major J.J.)  Main Point: Interpretation of the agreement should be based on the true purpose of the dealings & the intention  of the parties [15]  Note: What happened to the Nowegijick principles? Since the trial judge decided for the band and the appeal court against, there were obviously ambiguities.  Why didn’t McLachlin & Cory reconcile with Opetchesaht?  Serious problem here as the case began with a question of law and was resolved on an interpretation of fact. Yet the surrounding facts were not investigated. It would have been better to send back for re-trial. I doubt that the band was looking to sell its land. It is more likely that Cranbrook wanted an airport and since it is in the mountains there weren’t many options.  Issues: The Court refused to consider unnamed issues raised by the parties.[29] Procedure: Case instituted to determine a legal question: Do the words “cease to be used for public purposes” make the surrender “otherwise than absolute”? Decision claimed to be determined on the basis of the intention of the parties which is a question of fact. [surely it should have been sent to re-trial] Evidence: Assumptions: no evidence offered to support statements of fact in [18] No evidence to tell us whether the airport was an indigenous initiative or an external idea brought for their approval or how “fair market value” was determined. Concept of law: Imposed: Question of the consent of present or future members of the band raised by McLachlin in dissent in Opetchesaht not considered. Consensual: Claims to rely on the intention of the parties but ignored the need to investigate the intent of the band members beyond the wording of documents from the colonizing society Reasoning: Declaratory: “Absolute” and “conditional” are not mutually exclusive terms –either conceptually or under the scheme of the Indian Act. [19]; The “other issues raised by the parties” are dismissed without even being set out.[29] Values: Authoritarian: as under above points, affirms the “Indian Act reality”[38] Perspective: Ethnocentric: presumption that documents, presumably drawn up by Indian Affairs, represent the intent of the band.  The claim to respect others [15] is contradicted by the obvious disagreement of the band that brought the action.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign Yes Own language/culture      civ language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual   ? 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total    10     3        cv 37.1. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 Lamer C.J. (Cory, Major JJ.)  Main points: oral histories should be accepted on an equal footing with historical documents [87]; Aboriginal title “must be understood by reference to both common law and aboriginal perspectives” [113]; Aboriginal title is a right in land that “confers the right to use the land for a variety of activities, not all of which need be aspects of practices, customs and traditions which are integral to the distinctive cultures of aboriginal societies.”[111]; the land must be surrendered for a use that Aboriginal title does not permit (e.g., strip mining)[131]; s. 35(1) provides a constitutional basis for negotiation: “We are all here to stay” [186].  Note:  weakness of trial: all that evidence and only one judge to assess it; confused assessment; detailed accounts of prior reasoning but not of pleadings of parties or interveners.  Evidence: assumption: colonial era provided solid foundation for modern legality, for example use of St. Catherine’s [175]; federal government functioned to protect Aboriginal rights and land [176]. Concept of law: imposed: reliance on Crown’s assertion of sovereignty; does not mention Nowegijick; believes he can dictate: “I laid down in Gladstone” [167]. Reasoning: declaratory: many “principles” based on own previous reasoning [140, 141, 148, 165]. Values: authoritarian: mere assertion of sovereignty founds legality [145]; egalitarian: desire to apply the same common law standard to Indigenous people (though the essence of that common law standard is ignored); title to be founded on both cultures’ perspectives [113]. Perspective: ethnocentric: insists that Aboriginal land rights are sui generis [112-13]; defines the right in terms of the Indian Act and Canadian decisions [120-21]; relies on academic opinion in his culture [145]; takes common law as source of Aboriginal title [147]; applies Canadian constitutional principles although Indigenous peoples did not participate in forming the Constitution [177-78]; respect: recognizes and supports the importance of oral histories; Aboriginal perspective, including Aboriginal law, to be considered as source of title [147, 149];  supports negotiations and inclusion of all people affected [186].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined      cvi 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total   9.0   3.0 37.2. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 La Forest J. (L’Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin JJ.)  Main points: if Aboriginal people continue to occupy and use land, then it is necessarily of central significance to them “in developing vast tracts of land, [and] the government is expected to consider the economic well being of all Canadians. But aboriginal peoples must not be forgotten in this equation.”[204]  37.3. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010   McLachlin J. agreed with both Lamer’s and La Forest’s judgments.        cvii 38.  R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128. McLachlin J. (Lamer C.J.,L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie JJ.)  Main Point: The expectation that jurors will behave in accordance with their oaths does not obviate the need for challenges when it is established that the community suffers from widespread prejudice against people of the accused’s race.[25]  Parties: Accused is “aboriginal” Issues: Though charged, issue was raised by accused. Evidence: Reference to studies to support findings Concept of law: Imposed; legitimacy of use of Criminal Code & Canadian legality taken for granted Consensual: reliance on Parliamentary intent Reasoning: principles enunciated Values: aim to equalize position before the law  Perspective: Ethnocentric: belief that judicial & juror impartiality can be achieved. Respect: low threshold for allowing questioning of jurors   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    6   7       cviii 39(a). Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 The Court: Lamer C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie JJ.  Main Point: “The corollory of a legitimate attempt by one participant in Confederation to seek an amendment to the Constitution is an obligation on all parties to come to the negotiating table” [88]; If not negotiated in accord with constitutional principles, secession would not have the legitimacy needed for recognition by the international community [103];  Note for Canada: strong postcolonial initiative muddied by perpetuation of colonial historical perspectives and methods.  Judge: peer: judges members of culture of birth or choice. Parties: self-determined: birth identity or chosen by immigration. Venue: own: imposed by conquest or chosen by immigration. Issues: set by elected representative. Evidence: assumptions: status of Indigenous peoples is irrelevant to formation of the Canadian state; all Canadians supported what the dominant actors did (almost no primary sources cited); proof: references to events and procedures [33-46]. Concept of law: imposed: accepts British proclamatory authority [39]; consensual: charts participation of colonies; Confederation to “work together” [43]; requirement for negotiation under the Constitution to effect legitimate secession [104]. Reasoning: declaratory:  declares principles on the basis of subjective analysis; principled:  identifies principles and applies them; Rejects principle of “effectivity”  [106]. Values: authoritarian: Constitution established by imperial Parliament (not Canada’s); egalitarian: Canada established so that different races can work together [43]; consent of the governed is basic to understanding of free and democratic society [67]. Perspective: ethnocentric: Constitution established to ensure “continuity, stability and legal order” [33]; democracy emerged in the colonial era [63]; respect: federalism to reconcile diversity with unity [43].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties  Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues  Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual Yes      cix law 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total: Canada   5.0  10.0       cx 39(b). Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 The Court: Lamer C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie JJ.  Note for Quebec: the fact that the Canadian Constitution was imposed by conquest is not considered.  Judge: Chief Justice and two judges from Quebec [135] but with allegiance to Canada. Parties: Quebec is a province of Canada by conquest Venue: foreign: legal system imposed by conquest; own: Quebec formally participated in formulation of the Constitution, and French is an official language. Issues: imposed: Quebec did not agree to participate; amicus curiae appointed and supported case against secession [135], but the procedure was public, with some interveners from Quebec. Procedure: bias: amicus curiae supports case against secession [135]; open: many interveners. Evidence: assumptions: judicial notice of an Anglo-Canadian version of history; proof: data concerning Quebec’s participation in Canada. Concept of law: imposed: Quebec bound by a Constitution that it did not consent to [47]; consensual: negotiation required if a clear majority votes on a clear question. Reasoning: declaratory: source of principles (based on judicial opinion concerning a tautologically selective account of history). Values: authoritarian: the legitimacy of the imperial foundation of the state is assumed; egalitarian: supports minority rights and popular voice through vote. Perspective: ethnocentric: ignores conquest of Quebec; respect: French official language, participation in Confederation.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision Yes 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total: Quebec 10.0   8.0      cxi        cxii 39(c). Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 The Court: Lamer C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie JJ.  Note for Indigenous peoples: Aboriginal interests were specifically represented by four of the thirteen interveners. The Court referred to “aboriginal peoples” to defend its claim that Canada has a “long tradition of respect for minorities” and to cast doubt on the undecided question of whether or not Quebec represents a “people” [82, 138-39]. Yet its version of history and its account of the effect of international law completely ignores the ambiguity raised when Indigenous experiences are considered, and it declines consideration of “the concerns of the aboriginal peoples” [125, 139]. Judge: no Indigenous judges. Parties: generic “aboriginal peoples” seen as minorities [96]. Venue: foreign: imposed system, foreign languages. Issues: set by representatives of colonial governments. Procedure: Indigenous interveners. Evidence: assumptions: no evidence to support claim of protection for Aboriginal rights [46]. Concept of law: ignores need for Indigenous consent  [139]. Reasoning: declaratory:  principles  founded on subjective analysis. Values: authoritarian: despite the presence of many Indigenous interveners, presumes the the colonial assumption of sovereignty was legitimate. Perspective: ethnocentric: included “races” do not include Indigenous peoples [43], ignores Indigenous languages ; no mention of subjection of Métis who were represented by Riel  [45]; ignores treaties with Indigenous nations ; declares right of colonial peoples to self-determination  “irrelevant to this Reference” [132]; respect:considers constitutional protection for Aboriginal peoples “important” but it would only be “taken into account” in constitutional negotiations between Canada and Quebec(assumes equal Indigenous representation is not required) [82, 139].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual Some      cxiii law 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation  9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others  Some Total: Indigenous   9.0   2.0      cxiv 40.  R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R.393. Cory J. (Lamer C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie JJ.)  Main Point : The accused’s acquittal was confirmed in circumstances similar to Sioui, but with “properly drafted regulations”, the Crown could reasonably limit the hunting rights of Treaty No. 6 adherents.[46]  Notes: poor communication. Fact someone else cut the trees not dealt with until third court hearing.[19]; treaty seen as “sacred”. Consensual nature of “agreement” not commented upon.[24] Nowegijigk translated into Badger & repeated like a mantra, lacking nuanced insight. Secession Reference duty to negotiate not mentioned. No awareness of the way the procedures used interfere with recognizing a “sphere of autonomy”. Cory claimed that it was not necessary to decide whether the regulations applied to Sundown because “the appeal was resolved without reference to the Constitution Act, 1982 but, by his own account, the acquittal he affirmed was based on the “constitutionally protected right to hunt”.  Evidence: Assumptions: “virgin Forest” pre-colonization.[43] Concept of law: Imposed: honour of Crown understood as unilateral treaty interpretation [24] Crown could legislate to limit hunting rights [46] Reasoning: Badger principles applied Values:  Advocated curtailing treaty right through regulation [45] Relied on precedential authority without considering consensual spirit of treaty procedure Perspective: Ethno centric concept of legality. Respect: expeditionary hunting   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    8    4      cxv       cxvi 41.  R. v. Gladue, {1999] 1 S.C.R. 688. Cory & Iacobucci JJ. (Lamer C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache, Binnie JJ.)  Main Point : Whether or not an aboriginal offender lives on a reserve, sentencing should take account of their particular situation, including the systemic disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal people.  Note: “sad and pressing social problem” [64] represented by the “tragic overrepresentation of aboriginal people in prisons[87] discussed without acknowledging role of colonialism or residential schools. Example of how a problem can be characterized in a way that avoids confronting its source. Charges related to political incidents such as Riel “uprising” or more recently Oka, Gustaffsen Lake, Burnt Church, Ipperwash & Kanesatake policing not mentioned in broad discussion of the context.  Parties: Imposed concept of “aboriginal” but accused self-identified as “Cree”. Evidence: Articles, RCAP considered. Concept of law: Imposed: Colonial legal framework not questioned. Consensual: Indigenous concepts from RCAP accommodated Values: Authoritarian: Judge declares sentence. Egalitarian(?) restorative justice –goal of restitution & reintegration in community Perspective: Ethnocentric: failure to consider colonialism & residential schools as root cause of pervasive problems. Canadian culture called “traditional”[77] Failure to recognize political objection or jurisdictional disputes in list of causes of convictions (per Oka, Kanesatake etc. or treaty interpretation cases) [80] Respect: recognition of importance of restorative justice [70]; recognition that aboriginal opinions vary [72]; rejection of assumptions [78]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes      cxvii 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    7    7       cxviii 42.1 Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203. McLachlin & Bastarache JJ. (Lamer C.J., Cory, Major JJ.)  Main Points: -“Aboriginality-residence” is an analogous ground under s.15 because it is an immutable “personal characteristic essential to an Aboriginal band member’s personal identity” [14]; “it is not the ground that varies from case to case, but the determination of whether a distinction…is discriminatory”[9] “conflation of the second and third stages of the Law framework is to be avoided.” [12]  Note: Same profile as majority decision. They believe that  “this case can be solved on simpler grounds” than those offered by L’Heureux-Dubé, then launch into a discussion of analogous and enumerated grounds that is incomprehensible to anyone not versed in the esoteric lore of Supreme Court of Canada reasoning.  Issues: Imposed: “Batchewana Band took no part in the trial”[32] Evidence: Assumptions: said RCAP stressed “fundamental importance of retaining and enhancing their cultural identity while living in urban areas” but there was no evidence showing distance voting was part of the cultural heritage …or that voting in band council elections facilitates access to community and elders.[17] Concept of law: Imposed: Lesser Slave Lake submissions re consultative process ignored, like majority. Consensual: absolute denial of political rights decried [19] Values: Egalitarian: purpose of s.15 [5] Perspective: Ego/ethnocentirc: claim that Aboriginal residence decisions not comparable to those of other Canadians. Failure to acknowledge rootedness of some Canadians; fact that some reserves are not Indigenous homelands & that some places of off-reserve residence are. eg.. Batchewana – much off-reserve residence was on initial reserve allocation.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes      cxix 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    10 5.5        cxx 42.2 Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203. L’Heureux-Dubé J. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Binnie JJ.)  Main Points: “though it would be legitimate for Parliament to create different voting rights for reserve residents and people living off-reserve, …it is not legitimate for Parliament to completely exclude [non-residents] from voting rights.”[114] Note: The finding is postcolonial in recognizing the political rights of non-residents but colonizing in its view that the solution can be dictated by a Parliament in which those concerned have no effective voice. It completely ignores the well documented goal of assimilation that prevailed at the time the basic form of the Indian Act was set. The remedy with only 18 month suspension completely ignores the complexity of consultation required making expertise very thin on the ground & making everyone prioritize their issue.   Procedure: Case directly affected the rights of on-reserve ‘Indians” but there was no representation of any at trial, not even of the Batchewana band.[32] The absence of evidence concerning their situation was a factor in the reasoning [69]. Evidence: Assumptions: broadening issue & notifying only provincial AG’s is notice to all “those who have a stake in the outcome”[49] No evidence to support findings re factors determining who lived on or off reserve[62] Intention of the legislature in limiting voting to on-reserve “Indians” not considered. No evidence to support finding re “Parliament’s objective” for the legislation [99] Proof: some evidence re situation of Batchewana band, though it was ignored in the reasoning. Evidence supporting material assumptions was weak. Reasoning: Declaratory: legality based on own prior reasoning.[97] dictatorial remedy ignored band realities [118] Principled: common-law methodology used [110] Values: Authoritarian: ignored fact the Batchewana Band did not participate in formulation of the Indian Act. Egalitarian: listed arguments made by all present at trial [106-109] democracy respects minorities[116] Perspective: Ethnocentric: Off-reserve band members described as “a discrete and insular minority” [62] though over 62% of Batchewana band lived off reserve.[27] [Canadian rather than Batchewana perspective applied] Context is “Canadian society”[63] Failed to see concerns raised by C-31influx though mentioned by intervener.[109] Respect: “reasonable person” defined in perfect accord with post-colonial requirements [65]. In remedies, listed proposals of parties & most interveners.[106-109] respect for minorities[117]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision      cxxi 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    10 5.5       cxxii 43.1  R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456. Binnie J. (Lamer C.J. L’Heureux-Dubé, Cory, Iacobucci, Binnie JJ.)  Main Point : Extrinsic evidence concerning the historical and social context in which a treaty was negotiated can be taken into account when interpreting the common intent of the parties.The trial judge’s findings of fact must be respected, but failure to give adequate weight to the concerns and perspectives of one of the parties is an error of law.  Evidence: Assumption: “In my view, the treaty rights are limited to securing “necessaries”.[7] (note unsubstantiated acceptance by expert & Binnie that treaty rights are “subject to regulation”) [38] Proof: careful consideration of the documentary sources. Reference to Dr. Patterson’s evidence[37] Concept of law: Imposed: dependent on British recognition of Mi’kmaq rights [19] Unilaterally imposed regulations can be enforced without violating treaty rights [62] Consensual: no limitation on treaty right unless included in the treaty [65] Reasoning: Declaratory: reliance on precedent [9-14] Principled: many explained Values: Authoritarian: Imposed own category and threatened Marshall for violation.[8] Egalitarian: “A deal is a deal.  The same rules of interpretations should apply.”[21] Perspective: Ethnocentric: legality founded on British recognition [19] Treaty interpreted as unilateral granting of rights rather than inter-cultural or international agreement[54] -Respect: trial judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to the concerns of the Mi’kmaq. [19] “there can be no limitation on the method, timing and extent of Indian hunting under Treaty, apart, I would add, from a treaty limitation to that effect”.[65]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled Yes      cxxiii explanation 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    9    6       cxxiv 43.2 R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456. McLachlin J. (Gonthier J.)  Main Points: A general treaty right to trade cannot be founded on an expired exclusive trade covenant. “A claimant seeking to rely on a treaty right to defeat a charge of violating Canadian law must first establish a treaty right that protects, expressly or by inference, the activities in question.” [110] A treaty right must be defined so that the government can know how far it may justifiably trench on the right in the collective interest of Canadians.[112]  Note: “generous” interpretative principles stated [110] but not applied.  Parties: assumed Mi’kmaq were British subjects Evidence: Assumptions: -Mi’kmaq were British subjects & acknowledged British jurisdiction over N.S [86] Proof: used to support finding of mutual understanding[89] Concept of law: Imposed: presumption that British law applied to Mi’kmaq as to British though the treaty only included agreement that inter-cultural conflict would be solved by British law. Values: Authoritatian: precedents, not reasons found principle of interpreting in historical/cultural Context.[81] Assumed British had the right to dictate who could and could not trade.[86]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Assumption that there is no right unless it is “granted” by treaty.[108] Respect: each treaty to be interpreted in its historical and cultural context. [81]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total    9  3.5      cxxv       cxxvi 44 (a)  R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533. The Court: (Lamer C.J. L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Binnie JJ.) Main Point: The majority judgment in R. v. Marshall was misunderstood.[2] “The Court did not hold that the Mi’Kmaq treaty right cannot be regulated”. [2] “It is up to the Crown to decide whether or not it wishes to support the applicability of government regulations”[2]. “…the merits of the government’s justification [for regulation] may vary from resource to resource, species to species, community to community and time to time.”[22] Note: effect of the judgment was to place very narrow limits on the right that seemed to be affirmed in the majority reasons in the initial judgment.  Evidence: Assumption: Britain had a right to impose its laws on Indigenous people in “Nova Scotia”. Proof: Careful documentation of its explanation of its own past pronouncements. Concept of law: Imposed:  implicit requirement that Mi’kmaq get approval from Canada to do anything with resources.[20] Crown can decide whether or not to impose regulations and whether or not to enforce them.[2] Consensual: support for negotiated solutions [22] though firm support for “Government” discretion. Reasoning: Declaratory:  “The exercise of treaty rights may be regulated”[35] (no ref to international law) Principled: Some principles better enunciated here than in Marshall I. Values: Authoritarian: “the government’s regulatory power is clearly affirmed” [25] presumption that only Canada has a right to impose regulation of  resource use.[20-21] Government may define treaty right “in terms that can be…understood by the Mi’kmaq community”[37] Egalitarian: entitled to immediate acquittal like any other accused found not-guilty.[8]  right to know the case to meet.[15] Intention of both parties to a treaty to be considered.[19] “equitable sharing”[38]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Presumption that one party’s conception of the import of the treaties prevails and that no legal solution is possible other than that generated by Canadian legal culture. Indigenous conceptions are invisible eg. “Gaspegewich = “the end of the land”. Respect: (Less) Agreements negotiated with Britain varied from community to community.[17]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined      cxxvii 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual   ? 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Less Total: (Mi’kmaq)    9 4.3       cxxviii 44 (b) R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533. The Court (Lamer C.J. L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Binnie JJ.) Main Point: The majority judgment in R. v. Marshall was misunderstood.[2] “The Court did not hold that the Mi’kmaq treaty right cannot be regulated”. [2] “It is up to the Crown to decide whether or not it wishes to support the applicability of government regulations”[2]. “…the merits of the government’s justification [for regulation] may vary from resource to resource, species to species, community to community and time to time.”[22] Note: Obvious social & cultural differences between the members of the Court and the fishermen’s coalition suggest that the case had a colonizing effect on them as well.  Judge: social experience & culture radically different from fishermen Parties: Imposed: the people of Nova Scotia did not consent to join Confederation. Secession Reference [48] Self-determined: Represented through 2 separate provinces, members of Parliament & municipalities Venue: Canadian institutional venue Issues: The motion considered was filed by the Coalition. Procedure: public, interveners, arguments reviewed Evidence:  as for Mi’kmaq Concept of law: Imposed by Court interpretation. Enforcement of regulations is at the unfettered discretion of  “the Government”.[2] Reasoning :as for Mi’kmaq Values:  as for Mi’kmaq –high level of government regulatory discretion equally applied to all  Perspective: blind to the fishermen’s fears & expertise   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for      cxxix Perspective   others Total: (Settler)    7    6       cxxx 45 (a) Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783. The Court: (McLachlin C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel JJ.)  Main Point for Alberta: The Act’s purpose is to protect public safety. Parliament may control indirectly[40]  Judge: Are judges peers to farmers & hunters? Evidence:  Assumption: relied on study saying deaths “may” increase in jurisdictions with fewest restriction without evidence re actual effect.[21] Comparison of guns to cars based purely on subjective experience.[43]  Proof: citing Hansard [20] Concept of law: Imposed: Parliament’s purpose conflated with bureaucratic interpretation [20] Consultation not needed.[56] Reasoning: Declaratory: Rand J. in Margarine Reference cited without explanation re. ends served by criminal law [32] “prohibitions and penalties are not regulatory in nature”[38] Perspective: Ethnocentric: Concept of guns, cars [43-45] What did interveners argue? Analysis of the perspectives of farmers  & hunters conspicuously absent.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision ? 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total: (Alberta)    6 6.5       cxxxi 45. (b)  Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783. The Court: (McLachlin C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel JJ.)  Main Point for Indigenous people: Consultation with “rural aboriginal Canadians” has no bearing on division of powers analysis.[56] ie Issues may be characterized to completely exclude Indigenous concerns.  Procedure: Most Indigenous peoples not represented Evidence: Assumption: People who would have trouble accessing the registration scheme would be able to argue their case in court.[56] Concept of law: Consultation not required to ensure legality..[56] Reasoning: principles externally applied. Values: no Indigenous inclusion in formation of regulatory scheme  Perspective: Ethnocentric: “Firearms are often used as weapons in violent crime”[43] “Guns cannot be divided into two categories”[45] Indigenous concerns are irrelevant to questions related to division of powers.[56] “Gun control is directed at a moral evil”.[54]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation  9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total: (Indigenous)    10 1       cxxxii 46.  R. v. Catcheway, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 838. Iacobucci J. (McLachlin C.J. L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour,  LeBel JJ.)  Main Point: When there has been a reasonable apprehension of bias a new trial is warranted  Note: Court of Appeal had dismissed without giving reasons.  Issues: charge but defence raised the issue at hand. Concept of law: Crown agreed – evidence showed bias. Reasoning: prior involvement raises reasonable apprehension of bias. Values: standard rules of procedural fairness applied.  Perspective: New trial ordered giving chance to present case in a neutral tribunal.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total    4    7       cxxxiii 47.  Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950. Iacobucci  J. ( L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, JJ.)  Main Points: The equality guarantee in s.15 of the Charter are not violated by a scheme designed to benefit a disadvantaged group to the exclusion of an equally disadvantaged group. The casino program did not affect the core of federal jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867 s.91(24).  Note: At this point, s.15(2) appears to serve as an aid to interpreting the rights protected by s.15(1). The reasoning in the case seems bizarre & twisted. Argument turned on Indian Act status leaving the issues totally colonized. The context is fundamentally troubling.  Should the right to self-government for anyone depend on a casino operation? Should a government promote and exploit addictions on the pretence that this will make it possible to realize an inherent right? Parties: Imposed: Identity of all parties defined in relation to Canada’s Indian Act. [79] Issues: Imposed: Parties status defined by the Indian Act. Mutually Determined: Parties defined the issues brought to court. Evidence: Assumption: a casino operation can be used to promote equality. Proof:  re. the background and development of the scheme. Concept of law: Imposed: judicial precedent used to dictate the interpretation of the Charter [93,108] Constitution Act, 1867 used to define jurisdiction. [109-111] Consensual –reliance on the partnership quality of the casino venture. [82] Reasoning: Declaratory: approach relies heavily on the subjective interpretation of the judiciary Principled: Serious search for guiding principles though contact with reality lost in legalisms. Values: Authoritarian: presumption Canada has government which may persist in withholding self Government.[78] Egalitarian: arguments of all parties seem to be explained with unusual care.  Perspective: Ethnocentric: “reasonable person, in the circumstances of the claimant”[55] applied to find,  in essence, that the claimants were unreasonable to raise their concern.[90] Respect: each community has its own history & relations with government.[10] s.15(1) concerned with personal autonomy and self-determination - “human dignity” definition.[54]“reasonable perspective of the claimant”.[55]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision      cxxxiv 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Some 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    9    6        cxxxv 48. (a) Musqueam Indian Band v. Glass, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633 Bastarache J.  Main Point: Land evaluation must respect legal restrictions, including reserve status.  Note: There was no conflict with the Crown in this case.  The Musqueam chose to lease their land and did so by invoking Canadian legal paradigms.  Parties: Chose to lease under Canadian law Venue: Chose to lease under Canadian law Issues: Imposed by the renters but according to lease terms Evidence: *Except McLachlin omission re Salish Park[13.26] Concept of law: concern with intent of the parties Reasoning: *Declaratory: (McLachlin only) Evidence regarding Salish Park was ignored without explanation Values: Applied same rules to all regardless of status.  Perspective: Respected the Musqueam cultural choice re the leasing.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspectiveu a Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total (Musqueam)    4     9   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes      cxxxvi 5. Procedure  In camera/biased 1* Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions 1* Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total (Renters) * McLachlin decision only  2*   10  48. (b) Gonthier J.  (Major, Binnie,  LeBel JJ.) Main Points: The actual state of the land, including the fact that it is part of the reserve, should be used to calculate “current land value”. 48. (c) McLachlin C.J.  (L’Heureux-Dubé, Iacobucci, Arbour JJ.) dissent Main Points: “Current land value” means the actual value of similar land held in fee simple and it should not be reduced by 50% because it is situated on a reserve. The Band could sell so “The reserve character of the land…is not a legal restriction” [14] “Except where the parties expressly provide for a different method of valuation, it is plain meaning and common practice that should provide the default.” [18]      cxxxvii 49.  R. v.Deane, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 279 McLachlin C. J. (L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel JJ.)  R. v. Deane, (2000), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 84, 129 O.A.C. 335.  Main Point : Procedural error does not merit a retrial unless it could produce a different outcome.  Note: Fundamental issues concerning relations between Canada and the Indigenous nations were avoided.  The policeman with his finger on the trigger was found guilty of criminal negligence, not the federal bureaucracy that created the problem or the provincial officials who sent him there with a gun in his hands.  Judge: same basic socialization for Deane/ foreign for George Parties: Canadian citizen/alien designation as “aboriginal” Venue:–own culture/colonially imposed culture Issues: protocols & legal code Deane professionally supported Procedure: -public Evidence: Assumption: deceptive basis for the police action against the protesters ignored Proof: evidence concerning Deane’s actions closely considered Concept of law: Imposed command model: Deane consented through parliament to the standards of his culture/ not George Reasoning: Declaratory as the explanation had to be deduced from the Criminal Code Principled  for Deane’s concerns principles used in the analysis were set out/George’s unaddressed Values: Authoritarian command model of legality implemented & supported .Egalitarian equality before and under the law imposed  Perspective: Ethnocentric: No insight into the conceptual trap created for Deane inducing him to Lie or imagine rifle flash; George’s perspective assumed to be irrelevant to the issues Respect: Firm assertion that unarmed “Indians” can no longer be shot.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker  Peer decision Yes 2. Parties    Imposed identity  Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture  Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual Yes      cxxxviii Law 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total         re. Deane    6 10   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation  9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total         re. George    9     4   50. 1 Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 McLachlin C.J. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Arbour, LeBel JJ.)  Main point: “Claims must be proven on the basis of cogent evidence establishing their validity on the balance of probabilities” [51]  Note:Technique used is to redefine the issues, then  claim that the new definition is not met. According to Binnie, there was much debate on sovereignty at trial and at the Supreme Court [69], but McLachlin avoids this issue, which is central to the case [64],at least from the perspectives of both Mitchell and the Crown.  Procedure: biased: defines case to meet  in territorial terms  then uses territorial identity to exclude on the basis that even “Chief Mitchell did not discuss Mohawk trading activity north of the St. Lawrence River” [25, 48, 55]. Evidence: assumptions: characterizations of Adams and Gladstone ignore acknowledged      cxxxix evidentiary limits [52]; little evidence to show that Mohawks did not carry goods north of river; ignores role of Mohawks in modern state formation ; evidence: much close analysis, though she misreads Richter. Concept of law: imposed: the Court asserts the right to characterize based on Van der Peet [15]. Reasoning: declaratory: conceptual requirements of time and space [55]; assertion of the doctrine of continuity not founded on “prior informed consent” or anything else [62]. Values: authoritarian: ignores Mohawk cultural conceptions ; Does not consider the need for equal access to law-making function . Perspective: ethnocentric: ignores symbolic nature of Mitchell’s action, though evidence was before the court [85-89]; imposes own definition of the issues [25].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others  Total 10.0   3.0       cxl 50. 2 Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 Binnie J. (Major J.)  Main points: control over the mobility of persons and goods in the country is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty [160]; Aboriginal people are themselves part of Canadian sovereignty [164]; Indigenous mobility rights across the Canada-US boundary are incompatible with European (now Canadian) sovereignty and never came into existence [172-73].  Note: Adopts McLachlin’s reasons, so most of the same indicia apply.  Issues: sets out Mitchell’s arguments but answers own conception of the issues. Evidence: assumptions: Canada’s international obligations depend on instruments that Canada has not ratified [81-83]; advantage from intercultural (cross-border) role is not Indigenous [92] [v. Richter]; the People of the Longhouse go back 10,000 years [131]. Concept of law: imposed: audacious reinterpretation of the Two Row Wampum ignores the need for consent to agreements [130]; ignores the need for consent to found a “confederal relationship” [150]. Reasoning: declaratory: claims that Canada tried to minimize the disruption caused by the border [84];RCAP sees Aboriginals as full participants in a shared Canadian sovereignty, so they are part of it [135]; accepts that sovereignty could simply be declared by the 1783 Treaty of Paris [157]; uncritically accepts Vattel’s declaratory concept of legality  [163]; asserts a right to impose an external assessment of what defines Mohawk culture [164]. Values: egalitarian: Mohawks and Canada have their “own framework of legal rights and responsibilities” [131]; yet  so blind to the meaning of the Two Row Wampum and the need to share social space that his interpretation contradicts the concept of shared sovereignty. Perspective: ethnocentric: accepts uncritically 1906 Privy Council concepts  [108]; “[t]he Constitution was patriated and all aspects of our sovereignty became firmly located within our borders” [129]; sees longhouse as “spiritual” rather than governmental practice [117]; respect: describes Mohawk problems and wish to reunite a community divided by imposed boundary [77, 90]; recognizes that “[f]rom the respondent’s point of view, the aboriginal right flows from Mohawk sovereignty” [117].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge  Alien decision maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties  Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue  Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues  Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes      cxli 6. Evidence  Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values  Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian some 10. Perspective Ethno-/egocentric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total 10.0   4.5      cxlii 51.1  Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746. Iacobucci J. ( McLachlin C..J., Binnie, Arbour,  LeBel JJ.)  Main Points: -“this Court is not required to give legal effect to an unauthorized act of the state” [69] The band’s exercise of regulatory powers is limited and must be consistent with other regulations [77] When ambiguity makes two interpretations possible, the one favourable to Indian interests prevails [68]  Note: The authority under which the canal was taken was not explained.[39] Case is a product of  colonial modes of operation which were not directly repudiated by the Court. Drawing on Lambert’s reasoning in the BCCA, the Court, none the less, endorsed a decolonizing approach.  Issues: laws imposed but band decided to tax. Evidence: Noted the problem of insufficient evidence on significant aspects of the case [38-40] Concept of law: Imposed: Crown may remove land from reserve if intent is clear and plain.[47] Governor in Council is the grantor of the interest.[80] need for consent not considered. Indigenous rights emphatically subordinated to Crown sovereignty [166-7] Reasoning: many principles based on own reasoning. Values: Authoritarian: non-consultative expropriation process validated [57] Egalitarian: rejection of idea that “Indians” suffer from “incapacity”. [44]; instead of trumping Indian interest, public interest must be reconciled with it. [57]; limits both Governor in Council [69] and band [77]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Crown wanted to ensure “Indians are not dispossessed of their entitlements” [46] Respect: acknowledgement that expropriation of reserve land is different because of  the “sui generis” nature of the aboriginal interest”. [45]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual      cxliii 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    8    6        cxliv 51.2  Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746. Gonthier J.  (L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache,  JJ.)  Main Points: “Whereas a treaty is the product of bargaining between two contracting parties, statutes relating to Indians are an expression of the will of Parliament …”[and] must be read “with a view to elucidating what it was that Parliament wished to effect.”[124] “a bare interest in reserve land which is not also the object of aboriginal title, treaty rights or such other aboriginal rights cannot be considered to be an “aboriginal right” that is protected under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”.[169]  Note:  The case did not attack the expropriation of the land, the amount of land taken or the adequacy of the compensation.[156] “Once it is ascertained that s.35 of the Indian Act allows the expropriation of a fee, the possibility of the removal of land from a reserve by expropriation can only be impeached by attacking the constitutionality of s.35 of the Indian Act, or suggesting that somehow a particular instance of government consent, or indeed all consent to the expropriation of full ownership, is a breach of the Crown’s fiduciary obligation.”[157]  Issues: Band decided to tax canal lands in context of imposed laws Evidence: Assumed the appropriation of the land the canal was on was valid. Concept of law: Imposed: distinction between consensual sale and non-consensual expropriation irrelevant [138] Reasoning: Declaratory: reliance on the court’s own past findings [138] law of expropriation [149] Principled: Those relied on are explained Values: Authoritarian:  understanding of Indians irrelevant to expropriation of their land [124] Governor in Council may impose terms as he sees fit.[131] Perspective: Ethnocentric: Reliance on debate in a parliament where “Indians” had no vote or representation [151] Place: Interpret statute broadly to maintain rights & narrowly to limit rights [125] Open to constitutional challenge re validity of s.35 of the Indian Act?[142]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Imposed Yes Consensual      cxlv Law 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total    9   4.5       cxlvi  52.  Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146.  LeBel J.  (McLachlin C.J.  Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour,  LeBel JJ.)  Main Points:  “the Court should be particularly cautious about invalidating a provincial law when the federal government does not contest its validity”.[72] The British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act considers First Nations’ culture as part of the heritage of all residents of British Columbia [44]. Though the “overwhelming prevalence” of objects that the act applies to are Aboriginal, its pith and substance is property, so it is intra vires the province. The “need to exploit the province’s natural resources…in order to maintain a viable economy that can sustain the province’s population” must be balanced with “the need to preserve all types of cultural and heritage objects”.[76]  Note: If decolonization had been in issue, the fact that permits to cut culturally modified trees (CMT’s) required the Minister’s consent, not the Indigenous people’s consent, would have been determinative. This is a case that cannot see the Forest for the trees!!  Court did not consider that the Forest itself might be part of Kitkatla cultural heritage.  Venue: equated with all people in B.C. [69] Issues: Need to prove Aboriginal right, not established that “the essential and distinctive core values of Indianness” were affected.[76] Evidence: Assumption: no evidence to prove that logging the area including the CMT’s was a “goal deemed by society to be of greater value” & not just a profit-making venture for the logging companies.[62] No evidence to show respect for Indigenous rights would prohibit a viable economy[76] assumed the province’s population needs to be maintained when in-migration is actually encouraged.  Proof: related to ss. of act, past case law. Concept of law: Considered exclusively according to Canadian constitutional parameters Reasoning: as per usual case law analysis Values: Minister’s consent required, not the peoples’.s.13(4)  Perspective: Ethno-centric: Purpose of legislation  narrowly defined– extrinsic evidence is only seen as being “Hansard or the minutes of parliamentary committees”[53]  Concept of shared sovereignty includes no Indigneous sphere (contrary to Binnie’s supplemental reflections In Mitchell).  No consciousness of the way “exploitation of natural resources today” rather than preservation of the environment for future generations is a culturally specific purpose.[65]      cxlvii Respect: sets out positions of the parties [31-41] “Native concerns must be weighed at most steps of the administrative process”[44]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total    9  3      cxlviii 53.1 Ross River Dena Council Band v.  Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816. Bastarache J. ( McLachlin C..J. L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.) (minority reasons)  Main Points: : “the Crown is still free to deal with its land in any other manner it wishes”[7] S.18(d) of the Territorial Lands Act only concerned use of vacant land for agriculture and did not limit the Crown’s prerogative re reserve creation.[8] A reserve may be created by many formal procedures, provided the Crown intends to create a reserve.[10]  Note: Score as per  LeBel’s majority reasons Evidence: Assumption: The land where the Dena live belongs to the Crown [7] Proof: disagreement between officials in contact with Indigenous people and Ottawa [72-75] Concept of law: If the Dena are part of Canada, no consideration of the terms of their joining. Reasoning: Declaratory: requirements for reserve creation set out, but source not explained [1, 6] Values: Authoritarian: “the Crown is still free to deal with its land in any other manner it wishes”[7] Perspective: Ethno-centric: No sense that the concept of  “royal prerogative” may have changed over time or that it is alien to Dena culture.  No consideration of the principle that ambiguities should be decided in favour of the Indigenous nation.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Litt le Total    10 3.3       cxlix 53.2 Ross River Dena Council Band v.  Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816.  LeBel J. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour JJ.)  Main Points: To create a reserve the Crown agent must “have represented [the Crown] in very important authoritative functions”[66] and must have intended to create a reserve.  Procedure: In camera: Case to meet not known in advance - decided on the basis of Sioui test and the implicit claim that the Dena could not reasonably have perceived the Canadian officials as being sufficiently authoritative to bind the Crown. [As in Bear Island effect goes beyond declaratory reasoning] Evidence: Assumption: Ross River Dena would perceive differences in interests recorded in the Yukon Land Registry & perceive that registry of their land was not important enough to be a reserve[66] Concept of law: Imposed: issue of Indigneous consent to arrangements with Canada not considered Consensual: end comment supporting the negotiation process for the Umbrella Agreement, but the Dena who had not participated, were left in the air.[19] Reasoning:  “reasonably seen by the First Nation” test identified [64,69] but not really applied. Values: Authoritarian: without a treaty “the Governor-in-Council is free to designate any Crown land the Crown chooses as a reserve for a particular band”.[62] General presumption is that Canada determines what the law is without Indigenous participation. Perspective: Ethnocentric: Without a treaty, Governor in Council  is under no obligation to set aside land for a band [62] Presumption that Ross River Dena perceive importance of Crown agents in the same sense they do[66] Respect – detailed account of all parties pleadings; “Indians’ point of view” from Sioui [64]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Litt le Total    10      cl 3.3        cli 54.  Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245. Binnie J. (McLachlin C..J.L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel JJ.)  Main Points: Both bands had agreed to the existing use of the reserves so no substantive wrong was done.  Discretionary control is “a basic ingredient in a fiduciary relationship”.[80] “The fiduciary duty imposed on the Crown does not exist at large but in relation to specific Indian interests.[81] Outside the Constitution Act, 1982 s.35, the S.C.C. has only recognized fiduciary duty in relation to land [81]  Note: reliance of bands on authoritarian “black letter law” to create “legislative entitlement” through ditto mark error [52] used to claim equitable remedy. Consider why fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown is considered sui generis in the colonial context.  Parties: Indian Act incorporated chosen designation Venue: Kwakwala language [9] Foreign: Trial judge held “Cape Mudge Indians ” could understand English directly or with interpreter in 1907. Own:The venue was chosen by the Indigenous parties Issues: Decided own issues Procedure: ? per Wewaykum II Bias:?  Binnie, the judge who wrote the reasons, was Crown counsel in early stages (Wewaykum II) Evidence: Proof: detailed bureaucratic paper trail [10] Concept of law: Imposed: OIC procedure “transferred administration and control” of reserve land to federal Crown[51] Consensual: “wishes of the Indians” sought & respected.[6, 24, 37] The Court should not “allow the true intention of the parties to be frustrated by “technical” rules embodied in the  common  law.[43]; negotiated ditto marks distinguished from these[54] Reasoning: Declaratory assertion of the political trust doctrine [73] Values: Authoritarian  reliance on Anglo-Canadian legality. Egalitarian: Crown conceived as neutral arbiter in accord with the character of the application[96]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: assertion of the Anglo-Canadian legal canon [73-75] assertion of British sovereignty seen as a “necessity”.[79] Assumed, no Aboriginal obligations[95] Respect: sets out positions of the parties [31-41]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes      clii 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture Yes 4. Issues     Imposed  Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased    ? Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes* Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes* Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes* Respect/place for others Yes Total    7    9 *Most colonial indicia occur in the discussion of “sui generis fiduciary duty” that is not essential [after 72] Case assessed without consideration of issues raised by Wewaycum II.      cliii 55.  R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207. The Court: (McLachlin C.J. Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps JJ.)  Main Points: Aboriginal rights are communal rights [24] Métis identity can be determined on the basis of self-identification, ancestral connection and community acceptance.[30] [though remaining under the control of Canadian courts] The Van der Peet  test can be applied to determine Métis rights that were distinctive and integral to the pre-control Métis community.[38]  Parties: Imposed minority status, but self-identified Issues: charge countered by self-determined argument Procedure: Pre-control test not identified until the SCC level so Powley could not know the case to meet.  If convicted a retrial should have been ordered. Evidence: evidence reviewed Concept of law: Consensual: self identification - community determines identity [31-3] Reasoning: eg. purpose of s.35 protection  declared[13] Van der Peet principles declared applicable Values: Authoritarian: imposition of European legality equated with control [39] Egalitarian: Personal identity & community opinion crucial for determining Métis identity[31-3] Métis to be treated by analogy as Inuit and Indians[37] Perspective: Ethnocentric: “Riel rebellions” [26] depersonalized references to “Indian band”.[35] Respect: Community allowed to self-identify members   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Litt le Respect/place for others Yes Total 7.3    8        cliv 56. R. v. Blais, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236. The Court: ( McLachlin C..J. Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour,  LeBel, Deschamps JJ.) Main Points:  Métis are not entitled to benefit from the protection for “Indians” under the NRTA. Métis and ‘Indians” were separate and distinguishable groups at the time of the NRTA. A requirement for continuity of language should not be imposed on the constitution as a whole.   Note:Only the Crown’s view of the law considered [33] Colonizing effect of case derives from foundation on an imposed legality. Métis arguments (as represented by the Court) did not disturb this.  Issues: -imposed by charge, determined by Blais’ pleadings [13] but legal framework (NRTA) is imposed. Evidence: Agreed facts re basic charge. Noted how evidence supported trial findings [20] MacDonald quote [22] Census data [27] Concept of law: “rightly or wrongly, this view did not extend to the Métis”[33] Reasoning: Principles explained, but based on Crown’s imposed legality (note some seeming illogical arguments of Métis eg. [36]) Perspective: Ethnocentric:  Observation that Métis did not seek Crown protection [20] is strange given public knowledge of military conquest of Riel & Métis. Respect: Crown & Métis perspectives referred to [20] Métis arguments set out & addressed [36-40]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    8  4.5         clv 57. Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259. INDIVIDUALLY NAMED COURT (McLachlin C..J. Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps JJ.)  Main Points: -“no reasonable person informed of the decision-making process of the Court, and viewing it realistically, could conclude that it was likely that the eight other judges were biased, or somehow tainted, by the apprehended bias affecting the ninth judge.”[92]  Note: Given the hierarchical character of the judicial system, it might be impossible to find a trier for this case who is neutral in the sense of not being implicated  -short a jury trial or external assessment by an international tribunal. Issues: Crown filed motion [22], Court invited submissions [24] Procedure: Except for Deschamps, they judged their own decision.[92] Heavy reliance on Wilson J.’s article about court procedure.  Was it shown to the Indigenous parties? Evidence: Assumption: no evidence to support the claim that anyone can be impartial (eg.psychological studies) No opportunity to cross-examine on their assessment of their own procedure – which was critical to the outcome. Proof:  Memos related to Binnie examined in detail & his statement included. Concept of law: Imposed: both indigenous parties wanted the judgment vacated but it was upheld.[24,25] The Crown filed a motion [22] after Campbell River sent an information request[15] The Court asked for submissions from the parties [24] and left them to pay the costs of this [94]. Reasoning: Declaratory: assessment founded on their own conviction.[90] Principled: eg re bias & need for justice to be seen to be done Values: The fully informed “reasonable person” test seems egalitarian, but as applied by the Court none of the Indigenous parties or interveners qualified as “reasonable”.  Perspective: Egocentric “alleged reasonable apprehension of bias”[1] use of themselves as the standard for the reasonable person….failure to deal with the short-comings associated with the fact that they were judging their own proceedings   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign Yes Own language/culture      clvi language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased Yes Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others  Total   10     2 ½        clvii 58.  Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585. Bastarache J. (McLachlin C.J. Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour,  LeBel, Deschamps JJ.)  Main Points:  Adjudication is distinct from legislation so a province can enable a commission that may be required to consider defences based on  Aboriginal rights.[34] “the procedural right to raise at first instance a defence of aboriginal rights in a superior court, as  opposed to before a provincially constituted tribunal” has not been shown to go to the core of Indianness.[33] If an  administrative tribunal has the power to interpret questions of law, it may apply valid laws only to the extent that they do not run afoul of s.35 rights.[39]  Issues: charge Values: Authoritarian: discussion concerns what is “allowed” or “Permissible” (not “agreed”)[25] Egalitarian: concept of equality before the law implicit in considering effect of right to appeal [22]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Aboriginal rights have been identified as “collective rights”, but Paul’s nationality is not identified. He is just “a registered Indian”.[1] Totally absorbed in legal arguments so esoteric that the understanding of those with enough legal expertise to sit on the B.C.C.A. was called “fundamentally wrong”.[18] Expertise of specialized tribunals recognized [30], but not the expertise of Indigenous peoples in their own cultures. Respect: The judgment has the effect of requiring all tribunals to take account of  Aboriginal rights, making them more accessible to those without the means to pursue their rights to higher courts.   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes* Mutually determined Yes* 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Yes      clviii 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    7    6 * The very technical procedural arguments addressed in this case did not arise from the charge.  However, they may not have been raised by Paul either.  They may have been the initiative of the lawyer required because of the charge. If so, the burden of this case, whose cost surely exceeded the price of the deck Paul wanted to build, is even more onerous.       clix 59.  Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511 McLachlin C.J. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish. JJ.)  Main Points: “Knowledge of a credible but unproven claim suffices to trigger a duty to consult and accommodate.”[37] -“the duty to consult and accommodate…flows from the Crown’s assumption of sovereignty over lands and resources formerly held by the Aboriginal group.”[53]-“The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated” to third parties.[53]  Note: In this case the Court is caught at the crossroads between colonial and postcolonial legality. In keeping with the colonial establishment of British Columbia, the province assumed it had legal title to Haida Gwaii and issued Weyerhaeuser a licence to cut trees there.  However, under postcolonial rules “aboriginal title” must be recognized so the Court was faced with two claims whose validity depended on which legality prevailed.  Parties: Haida identity accepted – but only as Aboriginal and in Canada Issues:  Imposed by incursion of logging but Haida determined issues for court Concept of law: Imposed: Crown assumption of “discretionary control” accepted. [18] Consensual: Haida may choose what remedy to seek.[13] Values: Authoritarian: decision-making remains in “the government” despite “deep consultation”[44] Egalitarian: emphasis on consultation as “talking together for mutual understanding”[43]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: presumption that only Canada has the capacity to recognize legality [1] “The government holds legal title to the land”[6] Haida must prove rights to Canada but Canada not required to prove rights to Haida.[18, 36] “the duty to consult and accommodate…flows from the Crown’s assumption of sovereignty over lands and resources formerly held by the Aboriginal group.”[53] Respect: Begins by setting out the problem from a Haida perspective.[1] Haida allowed to seek the remedy they wanted[13]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Yes 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e Yes      clx qual 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Some Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total 6.5    8        clxi 60. Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550. McLachlin C.J. (Major, Bastarache, Binnie,  LeBel, Deschamps, Fish. JJ.)  Main point: If an Aboriginal nation with a prima facie claim is consulted during the certification of a project in their claim area and if their concerns are accommodated in the view of the Minister, the project may proceed over the nation’s objections.[45]  Note the contrast between the nuanced description of Haida Gwaii in Haida Nation and the depersonalizing use of  “TRTFN” here, especially when the mine in question is described by its full culturally appropriating name of “Tulsequah Chief Mine”, as if the foreign mine had more Indigenous identity than the people themselves.  Parties: Imposed very! “TRTFN”[1] Venue: Foreign: “the TRTFN…wished to have its concerns addressed on a broader scale than that which is provided for under the Act”.[36] Evidence: Assumptions: Staples’ addendum was able to adequately express Taku River concerns[13] Content of the Tlingit concerns in the supplementary report not reviewed. Proof: supports finding B.C. had knowledge of Taku River’s title & rights claim[26] Concept of law: Imposed: Tlingit concept of requirements rejected in favour of those in provincial legislation.[43-4] Consent clearly not required here. Reasoning: Declaratory: Tlingit concerns declared accommodated with no specification of what they were & only hazy general reference to them.[44] Principled: Haida Nation principles referred to but not fully applied. Values: Authoritarian: preference for Project Director’s assessment over Taku River’s – duty is only to consult, not to obtain consent and Indigenous opinion is ultimately irrelevant as an external assessment of their opinion is relied upon. [41]  Perspective: Ethno/ego centric: Trial judges directions for reconsideration of the Project Approval Certificate not set out & Appeal court’s reasons not detailed so reader cannot assess the reasonableness of other judicial approaches [19, 20] Blind to the province’s role as a party to the colonization of the Tlingit.[42] Respect: Inclusion of the Tlingit in on-going consultations expected.[46]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture      clxii 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Some Total    9    3       clxiii 61.1  R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005 ] 2 S.C.R. 220. McLachlin C.J. (Major, Bastarache, Abella, Charron. JJ.)  Main points: “what the treaty protects is not the right to harvest and dispose of particular commodities, but the right to practice a traditional 1760 trading activity in the modern context”.[26] “To say that title flows from occasional entry and use is inconsistent with these cases and the approach to aboriginal title which this Court has consistently maintained.”[59]  Note: Trial  Bernard: “according to the evidence of Chief Augustine, the Mi’kmaq had neither the intent nor the desire to exercise exclusive control, which in my opinion, is fatal to the claim for Aboriginal title”.[81] British authority to grant Mi’kmaq land never questioned or explained. Repeated assertion that “aboriginal perspectives…must be considered” but this principle was not applied and an externally determined analytical framework was applied. Presumed nothing “dishonourable” about taking over the whole of someone else’s environment.   Parties: –presumed to be under British rule Evidence: Assumption: the right to a catch & sell fish depends on treaties with the British.[13] “commercial logging” as conducted by the accused was “a European activity” [34][where?] Common law right to title has always meant exclusionary control.[77] [no evidence to support] Proof: discussion of Royal Proclamation & Belcher’s Proclamation Concept of law: Imposed: treaty interpretation is a unilateral process[13] title= exclusionary control[77] Imperial authority of “his Majesty” presumed to define legality [97-105] Reasoning: Declaratory: Source of authority is own previous reasoning [13] “Thus the truck house clause was concerned with traditionally traded products”.[19] though no evidence that this  superimposed limitation was in the contemplation of the parties in 1760-61. Values: Authoritarian: Reliance on the Court’s own previous interpretation of 1760-61treaties in Marshall, which found they “conferred” a right to fish and presumption that the Court rather than the signatories of the treaty had authority to define the scope of the agreement.[13] Egalitarian: both aboriginal & European perspectives must be considered [46] BUT presumes to have the expertise to assess what fits the Aboriginal perspective without reciprocating. Perspective: Ethno/Ego centric: Conclusion that “commercial logging” was a “logical evolution of traditional Mi’kmaq trading activity.”[35] Applied only Anglo-Canadian law despite claiming Aboriginal perspectives had to be considered. Insisted that the “group’s relationship to the land is paramount” but failed to look at the British relationship with the land in 1760.[136] Respect: “both aboriginal and European common law perspectives must be      clxiv considered” [45] “The mere fact that the group travelled within its territory and did not cultivate the land should not take away from its title claim.”[136]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian    ? 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Litt le Total    9 2.75       clxv 61.2   R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005 ] 2 S.C.R. 220.  LeBel J.  (Fish J.)  Main Points: “The treaty protects both a right to trade and a right of access to resources” [113] “The right of trade and the right of access to resources for trade must bear some relation to the traditional use of resources in the lifestyle and economy of the Mi’kmaq people in 1760.”[125] “The patterns and nature of  aboriginal occupation of land should inform the standard necessary to prove aboriginal title.” A final determination of aboriginal title should only be made when there is adequate evidence.  Note: rambling discussion of the importance of “the aboriginal perspective” with virtually no evidence of what it was or is. The only Aboriginal perspectives cited at any point were Chief Augustine’s mention of the environmental problems caused by British logging [122] and John Borrow’s advocacy for reconciliation of Aboriginal & Canadian law [128, 130] Comparison between British & Mi’Kmaq occupation in 1760 conspicuously absent in both sets of reasons.  Evidence: Assumption: Mi’kmaq could not cut large logs because they lacked the necessary tools.[121]  (Indigenous people felled trees using fire. William Cronon, Changes in the Land :Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (New York : Hill and Wang, 1983), 48). Values: Accepted authority of Anglo-Canadian court in face of egalitarian assertions of the need to take account of  “the aboriginal perspective”.eg.[139].  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Law based only on Anglo-Canadian opinion & culture. 1760 measure re resource access applied only to Mi’kmaq, not to other Canadians. [125] Respect: Attempt to find a place for Aboriginal perspective.  Critique of the use of summary conviction procedure.[142-4]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Some      clxvi 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian ? 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others Yes Total    9 3.75        clxvii 62.  Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388. Binnie J. (McLachlin C..J. Major, Bastarache,  LeBel, Fish, Deschamps, Abella, Charron. JJ.)  Main Points: The 1899 negotiations for Treaty 8 “were the first step in a long journey that is unlikely to end any time soon.”[56]. “Treaty 8 provides a framework within which to manage the continuing changes in land use already foreseen in 1899.” [63] “The Crown’s duty to consult imposes on it a positive obligation to reasonably ensure that [representations of Aboriginal peoples]…are seriously considered and, wherever possible, demonstrably integrated into the proposed plan of action”.[64]  Issues:  no evidence they asked to join Canada , lack of interest in reserve.[3] Road was an external initiative. Evidence: Proof: shows roads change wildlife patterns [44] Concept of law: imposed legality rejected. Requirement for consultation does not go so far as to require consent, but the requirement to accommodate comes close – perhaps as far as reasonable for postcolonial law. Reasoning: Principled: based on honour of the Crown Values: Egalitarian: principle of looking at both perspectives actually applied throughout the reasoning. Perspective: Respect: Information re Mikisew & Treaty 8; opinion of Chief Poitras [9], of Mikisew [15] Mikisew submissions [35]. Sensitivity to geographic ecological variation[45] & to “significance and practicalities” for First Nations[47]. Meaningful right to hunt based on traditional territory [48].   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed  Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes      clxviii Total    4    6         clxix 63.1 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686. Bastarache J. (McLachlin C.J.  LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein)  Main Principle: Defense of aboriginal right to harvest wood for domestic purposes made out.  Parties: Canadian Citizens but Indigenous Issues: Defined by charge under Crown Lands Act, though could raise defence Evidence: Proof: evidence of historian to found finding re use of wood [28] N.B. there was evidence of  trade though it was excluded see [30] treaty history [64] Assumptions: Mi’kmaq & Maliseet “migratory” Concept of law: Imposed; Van der Peet test [22] primacy to Court’s recognition [23] [31], [38] Reasoning: Principled; use of Van der Peet test, Adams Values: Authoritarian: Court to define scope of s.35 [22] citing Van der Peet  - primacy to Court’s recognition [23] [31], [38]. Crown right to extinguish affirmed pre s. 35 [58]  Perspective: Ethnocentric:  quest for “distinctiveness”; “harvesting wood” for “personal uses” too General.[24]; definition of Maliseet & Mi’kmaq as “migratory people” [24][46] insistence on “distinctiveness” [34], emphasis on contact as a time frame [34] Respect: to protect traditional means of survival [38] different ideas re distinctiveness [43] differences in different languages[44] avoid racialized stereotypes [46] Allowed to use resource in traditional territory [53] Crown bears burden of proving extinguishment [57]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined Some 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Some Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian Some 10. Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for Yes      clxx Perspective   others Total 7.5  6  63.2 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686. Binnie J.  Main Point Barter should be permitted on the reserve, but not outside.  Note: Respected right of Indigenous people to barter among themselves but ethnocentric belief Court has authority to impose restrictions on their relations with others.[74]      clxxi 64.1 McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. Gods Lake First Nation [2006] 2 S.C.R. 846. McLachlin C.J. ( Bastarache,  LeBel, Deschamps, Charron, Rothstein JJ.)  Main Principle: Funds from a Comprehensive Funding Arrangement held in an off-reserve bank are not protected from garnishment by the Indian Act.  Note:. uncritical reference to assimilation policy of 1938[52]  Evidence: Assumptions: no evidence to support claim of Canadian policy change in 1930’s & 40’s [51] Lack of information about the history of Indigenous relations with “government” leads to distortion suggesting the Indigenous “aspiration” to self-determination and self-government was a 20th century development though there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest they believed they always had these rights. Naive belief that 1938 revision marked change in attitude despite referring to the “need to develop a spirit of self-reliance and independence in our Indian wards”[52] Speculation re Parliament’s intent [61] Claims her interpretation fosters self-reliance, self-government & economic development with no supporting study Concept of law: Imposed: laws of colonizing society imposed (Indian Act, Trust & Loan Companies Act, case law, Parliament’s wish [20] Values: Authoritarian:  Should not disturb Parliament’s distinction  Perspective: Ethnocentric: application of Parliament’s wish [20] Adoption of assimilationist view re making Indians citizens[53] & adoption of new Indian Act[55]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge      Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties    Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue      Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues     Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure  In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence   Assumptions Yes Supported by proof Some 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual 8. Reasoning  Declaratory Yes Principled explanation Yes 9. Values     Authoritarian Yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric Yes Respect/place for others       clxxii Total    9  3.5       clxxiii        clxxiv 64.2  McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. Gods Lake First Nation[2006] 2 S.C.R. 846. Binnie J. (Fish, Abella JJ.)  Main Principle: CFA should be treated like a treaty and exempted from garnishment under s.90(1)(b) of the Indian Act.  Concept of law: Imposed: Indian Act standard.  Consensual: reliance on treaty ideal; need for change anticipated [144] Reasoning: Principled –reliance on equitable rules of interpretation [121] Values: Authoritarian: interpretation of Canadian statutes made without Indigenous input [127] Egalitarian:  treat all bands equally [121] predictability [146] avoid national embarassment [149]  Perspective:-recognition of colonial dispossession [106] [124]; recognition of language problem[125] “survival as liveable communities” [134]; Nowegijick principles [144]   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge       Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties     Imposed identity Yes Self-determined Yes 3. Venue       Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues      Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure   In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual Yes 6. Evidence    Assumptions  Supported by proof Yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed Yes Consensual Yes 8. Reasoning   Declaratory  Principled explanation Yes 9. Values      Authoritarian  Egalitarian Yes 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric  Respect/place for others Yes Total    5  7       clxxv 65.1 R. v. Morris, [2006]  2 S.C.R. 915 Deschamps & Abella JJ.  ( Binnie, Charron JJ.)  Main Points : Sparrow & Badger justifications only apply when government is acting within its constitutionally mandated powers [55]  Issues: Imposed: charge, acceptance of non-consensual regulation Evidence: Assumption: “they agreed to relinquish control over their lands on Vancouver Island” [ no evidence offered][25]  Proof –re hunting rights – Douglas letter etc[22] night hunting [28] no evidence of accident from night hunting[59] Concept of law: Imposed: division of powers analysis [42]; “insignificant” infringements of treaty rights OK [50] Sparrow definition of infringement [51] Consensual: treaty respected Reasoning: declaratory (reliance on McLachlin) use of principles [29]; “insignificant” infringements of treaty rights OK [50] Values: Authoritarian: “insignificant” infringements of treaty rights OK 50]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: Division of powers analysis [29] Respect: interpretation [29], protection for “Indianness” – right to hunt [44]    Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge       Alien decision-maker Yes Peer decision 2. Parties     Imposed identity Yes Self-determined yes 3. Venue       Foreign language/culture Yes Own language/culture 4. Issues      Imposed Yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure   In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual yes 6. Evidence    Assumptions yes Supported by proof yes 7. Concept of Law Imposed yes Consensual yes 8. Reasoning   Declaratory yes Principled explanation yes 9. Values      Authoritarian yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric yes Respect/place for others yes Total    9    6         clxxvi 65.2 R. v. Morris, [2006]  2 S.C.R. 915. McLachlin C.J. & Fish  J. ( Bastarache J)  Main Point: treaty right to hunt is subject to an internal limitation that excludes dangerous hunting [64] “treaties must be interpreted in a manner that contemplates their exercise in modern society”[115]  Issues: Imposed: charge, reasoning relies on past jurisprudence in the colonial culture [85] Evidence: Assumption: accused are Canadians [85] hunting at night is dangerous [108] Concept of law: Imposed: analysis begins with 91(24); “province” or “government” has right to Define [123,124] Reasoning: Declaratory: reliance on Court’s own reasoning  [123] Values: Authoritarian: assumes right to legislate for Indians; “preference for Singh’s interpretation “We prefer” [106]  Perspective: Ethnocentric: opinions canvassed are those of judges in colonizing society [105] [127] Indigenous opinion is invisible. View that treaty “conferred” right to hunt [135] Respect: concern for public safety   Colonial  Postcolonial 1. Judge       Alien decision-maker yes Peer decision 2. Parties     Imposed identity yes Self-determined yes 3. Venue       Foreign language/culture yes Own language/culture 4. Issues      Imposed yes Mutually determined 5. Procedure   In camera/biased  Public/interveners/e qual yes 6. Evidence    Assumptions yes Supported by proof 7. Concept of Law Imposed yes Consensual 8. Reasoning   Declaratory yes Principled explanation yes 9. Values      Authoritarian yes Egalitarian 10. Perspective Ethno/ego centric yes Respect/place for others some Total    9 3.5         clxxvii       clxxviii            clxxix  Appendix 5 Use of the Canadian Judicial Institution  5.1: Form of Participation  INITIATION OF THE CASE Indigenou s defendant Settler defendan t Total a. Crown penal charge/assessment  30  2  32 b. Crown court suit  2   2 c. Crown inquiry/reference  1  2  3 d. Private suit   3  2  5 e. Indigenous suit  18  18  f. Crown alliance with Indigenous interest  6   6 g. Crown support for private property interest  27   27 h. Indigenous/settler alliance  7  7 i. No Crown-Indigenous adversity   6  PROVOCATION By the Crown:   40 j. Charge re resource use (hunting, fishing, logging)  22   22 k. Tax/customs assessment   4   4 l. Grants/permits/leases given to settlers  14   14  By an Indigenous party:   9 m. Legal initiative  2  2 n. Claim/tax assessment  3  3 o. Blockade  2  2 p. Public refusal to comply with settler regulations  2  2  INTERVENERS q. Federal Crown   22 r. Provincial Crowns   37 s. Indigenous   40 t. Private   22 u. No intervener   10        clxxx 5.2: Penalization of Indigenous Parties   Number charged  Acquit ted More trial  Convicte d Nowegijick, tax  1      1 Jack and Charlie, hunting, ceremonial, BC 2   2 Dick, hunting, closed season, BC 1   1 Simon, hunting, treaty, Mi’kmaq 1 1 Horse, hunting, Treaty 6, NRTA 8   8 Francis, traffic regs on reserve, NB 1   1 Horseman, hunting, bear attack, Treaty 8 1   1 Sioui, hunting, in park, treaty 4 4 Sparrow, fishing, BC 1 1 Jones, bingo, ON 2   2 Williams, tax 1 1 Howard, fishing, closed season, ON 1   1 Badger, hunting, Treaty 8, NRTA 3  1 2 Nikal, fishing on reserve, BC 1 1 Lewis, fishing, by reserve, BC 3   3 Van der Peet, fish sold, BC 1   1 Gladstone, herring spawn on kelp, BC 2  2 Pamajewon, gambling, ON 5   5 Adams, fishing, Mohawk, QC 1 1 Côté, fishing, traditional, QC 5   1*  5 Williams, robbed pizza parlour 1  1 Sundown, hunting cabin, Treaty 6 1 1 Gladue, manslaughter 1   ** Marshall, fishing eels, Mi’kmaq 1   1 Catcheway, roadblock 10  10 Mitchell, customs, Mohawk 1   1 Powley, hunting, Métis, ON 2 2 Blais, hunting, Métis, NRTA 1   1 Paul, cut logs, BC 1  1 Marshall/Bernard, logging, Mi’kmaq, NS 35   35  Totals 99 14 15 70 * Acquitted on one charge, convicted on another ** Re jury selection, served sentence unchanged        clxxxi         PAGE  1 REFERENCES This list of references was originally compiled from a 900 page version of the text that became the 600 page doctoral dissertation, Ghost Dancing at the Supreme Court of Canada, successfully defended at the Université de Montréal in 2008.  The work was distilled for publication and references for updates were added.  Titles have not been edited by UBC Press to fit its house style. Capitalization appears as presented in the version of the work read by the author and any errors, omissions or typos are the responsibility of the author.  The content of some internet addresses may have been altered and some may no longer work, but the references may usually be found by using Google to find the title.  Please note this information was provided courtesy of the author and does not necessarily reflect UBC Press editorial guidelines.  Archival Documents Evidence submitted to the Privy Council in St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. the Queen on Information of the Attorney General of Ontario H.L. Vol. XVI 46 J.C. (1889) U.B.C. Law Library KG42 P748 1888 No.69.  Department of Indian Affairs: ST. LOUIS, A.E., “Aide Memoire with respect to historical facts, documents, manuscripts, and other original and authentic records relative to the claim of the Six Nations Indians against the Canadian Government in the matter of the investment of more than $182,000 of their Band funds into the Grand River Navigation Co. Enterprise without their consent - between the years 1834 and 1845.” (Ottawa, Department of Indian Affairs, 3 Dec 1952).  National Archives of Canada: Dingman to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, 19 May, 1890 PAC RG10 v.2284. Six Nations Petition to Governor-General in Council of the Dominion of Canada, 12 March, 1920. National Archives of Canada RG2 v. 2816, 1920. National Archives of Canada, R.G. 10, vol.2285, file 57,169-1A. Woodlands Cultural Centre, Brantford   Alexander General file: “The Accomplishments of the Indian Defense League”       “Six Nations Annual Pagent”   Levi General file: “Levi General, condoled title- Deskaheh” Court Applications, cases, government documents, inquiries:   Canadian Annual Review, 1920.      PAGE  2   Canadian Human Rights Commission: Fallan Davis, Investigation Report, 1 Oct. 2008, File 20061366. Commission of Inquiry Into Matters Relating to the Death of Neil Stonechild, Justice D.H. Wright, Commissioner, http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca Confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 1993). Ethical Principles for Judges (Canadian Judicial Council, 1998). Kahentinetha and Katenies, Persons of the Kanion’kehaka/Mohawk Nation v. The Queen, Federal Court T1309-08. Katenies [aka Janet Davis] v. Her Majesty the Queen, Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario, City of Cornwall, Motion to Dismiss Information #C2202/03 12 January 2007 . Historical Development of the Indian Act (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1975). Indian Treaties and Surrenders (Ottawa: Brown Chamberlin, 1891). A Look at Canada 2004  (Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2004). Oka-Kahnehsatake – Été 1990,  Monique Rochon, Pierre Lepage, (Rapport de la Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, Avril, 1991). Royal Commission on Aboriginal People,  René Dussault and Georges Erasmus co-chairs:  (RCAP): v.1 Looking forward, looking back (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1996). v.2 Restructuring the Relationship (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1996). v.3 Gathering Strength (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1996). v.4 Perspectives and Realities (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1996). v.5 Renewal: A Twenty-Year Commitment (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1996). Bridging the Cultural Divide: Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada (Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 1995). Choosing Life: special report on suicide among Aboriginal people (Choisir la vie) (Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 1994). Partners in Confederation: Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government and the Constitution (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 1993).  Judgments (all jurisdictions) The full text of Canadian cases is available from the Canadian Legal Information Institute at http://www/canli.org * cases in the core study – (See Appendix 1 for chronological list.)  2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Québec (Régie des permis d’alcool), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919.      PAGE  3 A(C) v. Critchley (1998), 166 D.L.R. 4th  475. Amodu Tijani [1921] 2 A.C. 399. Bennell v. State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1243. Blackwater v. Plint, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 3, 2005 SCC 58 (CanLII). *Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) [1995] 4  S.C.R. 344. Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342. Bromley London Borough Council v. Greater London Council [1983] 1.A.C. 768, [1982] 1 All E.R. 129 (H.L.) Calvin’s Case (1608), 7 Co. 1a at 10b, 77 E.R. 377, (K.B. and Exch. Ch.). Campbell v. Hall (1774) 1 Cowp. 204; Loft. 635 ; 98 E.R. 1045. Canada (Attorney General) v. Davis, 2009 FC 1104 (CanLII). Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157. *Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [1995]1 S.C.R.3; 1995 CanLII 145. *Canadian Pacific Limited v. Paul, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654. Case of Tanistry (1608) Davis 28 Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia (1831) 5 Peters 1. Connolly v. Woolrich (1867), 11 L.C.J.197. 17 R.J.R.Q. 75. *Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203. *Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3. S.C.R. 1010. *Dick v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309. E.B. v. Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in the Province of British Columbia, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 45. Edwards v. A.G. Canada [1930] A.C. 124 [1929]; 1 D.L.R. 98 (P.C.). Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St.Tr. 1030, 95 E.R. 807, K.B. Fletcher v. Peck, (1810) 10 U.S. 87, 6 Cranch 87. *Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1  S.C.R. 3. *Goodswimmer v. Canada (Miinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 309. Grand Chief Michael Mitchell v. Canada, Inter American Commission on Human Rights Report No. 61/08, case 12,435, 25 July 2008, http://www.cidh.org/ *Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. *Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511. Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 *Jack and Charlie v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 332. Johnson v. M’Intosh, (1821)  21 U.S. 543, 8 Wheat 543. *Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146. *Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., [1989] 2. S.C.R. 574, 1989, CanLII 34. Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497. Lovelace v. Canada (1981) UN Doc. A/37/40,166 ; 2:1-2 HRLJ 158 ; (1981) 1 Can. Human Rights Y.B.305.      PAGE  4 *Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII). Mabo v. Queensland [No. 2](1992), 175 C.L.R.1. *McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. Gods Lake First Nation 2006 SCC 58 (CanLII). Mackiegan v. Hickman[1989] 2 S.C.R. MacIlreith v. Hart (1908), 39 S.C.R. 1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137. *Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, (CanLII). Miller v. Jackson (1977) Q.B. 966. Minnesota State Board for Community  Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (184) at 285. Mitchell v. Canada, Inter American Commission on Human Rights Report No. 61/08, case 12,435, 25 July, 2008.      http://www.cidh.org/anualrep/2008eng/Canada12435eng.htm. *Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911. *Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85. *Musqueam Indian Band v. Glass, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633. *Native Women’s Assn. of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627. *Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Nova Scotia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 788. Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504. *Nowegijick v. The Queen, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29. Olive v. Ingram (1738) 7 Mod. 263.  *Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 579. *Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119. *Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 746. Oyekan v. Adele, [1957] 2 All E.R. 785. *Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (National Energy Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159. *Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585. Tito v. Waddell [1977] 3 All E.R. 129 (Ch.). Town Investments Ltd. v. Department of the Environment [1978] A.C. 359 (H.L.) Re Monashee Enterprises Ltd. and Minister of Recreation and Conservation for British Columbia (1981) 124 D.L.R. (3d) 372 (B.C.C.A.) *Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 2000 SCC 32 (CanLII). Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721. Reference re Objection by Quebec to a Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793. Ref. re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3. *Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217. *R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101. R. v. Agawa (1988), 65 O.R. (2d.) 505. *R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771.      PAGE  5 *R. v. Blais, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236. *R. v. Catcheway, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 838. *R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139. *R. v.Deane, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 279. *R. v. Deane, (2000), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 84, 129 O.A.C. 335. *R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025. *R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723. *R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688. *R. v. Horse, [1988] 1. S.C.R. 187. *R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901. *R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299. *R. v. Jones, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 110. R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 (CanLII). *R. v. Lewis [1996] 1 S.C.R. 921. *R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533. *R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456.  *R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, 2005 SCC 43 (CanLII). *R. v. Morris, 2006 SCC 59 (CanLII). *R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013. *R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 821. *R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207. R. v. St. Catherines Milling and Lumber Company (1885) 10 O.R. 196 (Ch.D), aff'd (1886) 13 O.A.R.148 (Ont. C.A.). *R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, 2006 SCC 54 (CanLII). R. v. Siliboy, [1929] 1 D.L.R. 307 (Co. Ct.). *R. v. Sioui,[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075. *R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672. *R. v. Sparrow ,[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075. *R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R.393. *R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507. R. v. White, (1964), 50 D.L.R. 2d 613. *R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128. Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753. *Roberts v. Canada, 1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 189 CanLII 122. *Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816, 2002 SCC 54 (CanLII). River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson and Others, [1874-80] All E.R. 1 H.L St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen (1888) 14 App.Cas. 46 at 55. *St. Mary’s Indian Band v. Cranbrook, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 678; 1997 CanLII 365. Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority v. CAW-Canada [2001] S.C.R. 644. Sero v. Gault (1921) 64 D.L.R. 327 (Ont. S.C.). *Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387. Singh v. Minister of Empolyment and Immigration [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177. Southam v. Smout [1964] 1 Q.B. 308 at 320. *Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550.      PAGE  6 Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493. Westbank First Nation v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority [1999] 3 S.C.R. 134. Western Sahara, I.C.J. Advisory Opinion, 16 October, 1975 http://www.icj-cij.org *Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259. *Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245. *Williams v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 877. Wimbledon, (1923) PCIJ, Series A, no.1 25. Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G. (D.F.), [1997] 3 S.C.R.925. Woo Estate v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner) 1999 CanLII 8194 (F.C.A.).  Legislation, Treaties and Accords (All jurisdictions) An Act for extending the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, to the Trial and Punishment of Persons guilty of Crimes and Offenses within certain Parts of North America adjoining to the Provinces, 1803 (U.K.), 43 Geo. III c.128. Act of Settlement, 1700 12 and 13 Will.3 ; 6 Statutes 496. (U.K.) British Nationality Act, 1981.  (U.K.) British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Vict.c.3 (U.K.) Canada Act, 1982, c.11. (U.K) Charter of Massachusetts Bay: 1629, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon Charter of the United Nations [1945] R.T. Can. 7 (Int. – Can.) Citizenship Act S.C. 1946 c.15. (Can.) Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, U.K. 28 & 29 Vict. c.63. Constitution Act, 1982 enacted by the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.) 1982 c.11, Sched. B. Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.) Constitutional Act, 1791, 31 Geo. III c.31 (U.K.). The Constitution of the Five Nations or the Iroquois Book of the Great Law,  A.C. Parker, [originally New York State Museum Bulletin: 184 (Albany:University of the State of New York, 1916)] (Ohsweken, Ontario: Iroqrafts, 1991)  Gayanerekowa: The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, Louis Karoniaktajeh HALL English trans. Kahn-Tineta HORN (Kahnawake via Quebec:Owera International, 1993) owera@cyberglobe.net. Convention No 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, International Labour Office, Official Bulletin, vol.72, series A, No. 2 (1989) s. 1(b). (Int. – Can.) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, U.N.T.S. No.1021, vol.78(1951), p.277. Coronation Oath Act 1688, 1 Will. & Mar., c. 6 ( U.K.)      PAGE  7 Covenant Chain, see eg. Mark WALTERS, “Brightening the Covenant Chain: Aboriginal Treaty Meanings in Law and History after Marshall” (2001) 24 Dal. L. J. 75 at 80-81 Covenant of the League of Nations, S.C. 1921 c.46. Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c.24. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res. 1514(XV), UN GAOR, 15th Sess., Supp. No.16, UN Doc. A/4684 (1961) 66. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res. 7 Sept. 2007, UN Doc. A/61/L.67. Indian Act, 1876, S.C. 1876, c.18 (39 Vict.). Indian Act, 1906 S.C. 15 Geo. VI c.29. Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.I-5. Inter American Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo, 1933) 165 R.T.S.D.N. 19. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1976] R.T. Can. 47. Petition of Right, 1628, http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/petition.html Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995 (South Africa) http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/ Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter, GA Res. 1541(XV). International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 19 Dec. 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 ; Can. T. S. 1976 No. 46. Operational Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 Dec.1996; 999 U.N.T.S. 216; Can. T.S. 1976 No.47. Quebec Act, 1774 (U.K.) R.S.C. 1970. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 01 July, 2002, Can T.S. 2002/13. Royal Proclamation, 1763 (U.K.), R.S.C. 1970, Appendix II, No.1. Rupert’s Land Act, 1868 31-32 Vict. C 105 (U.K.) Supreme Court Act, R.S., c.S-19, s. 8. Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 (U.K.),  9 and 10 Geo. V, c.33. Two Row Wampum (Guswentah), Dingman to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, 19 May, 1890 PAC RG10 v.2284; infra n. 29. United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 of 20 April, 1994. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/205, 13 Sept.2007. United States Constitution, U.S. Con. Res, 76, 2 Dec. 1987. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A.G. Res. 217A(III), U.N.Doc.A/810(1948).       PAGE  8 Bibliography The focus of this study is on the Supreme Court judgments examined.  There is no claim to have correlated all relevant observations by all authors with the theory presented. ABELLA, Rosalie Silberman, “Remarks of the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella”, (Ottawa: Swearing-in Ceremony, 4 October, 2004) http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca (6/11/2006). ADAMS, Howard, A Tortured People: The Politics of Colonization (Penticton, B.C.: Theytus Books, 1995). ALCOFF, Linda, “The Problem of Speaking for Others” (1991) 20 Cultural Critique, 5. ALCOCK, Antony, “The ILO and Native Labour” in History of the International Labour Organization (New York: Octagon Books, 1971) 81. ALFRED, Taiaiake and Lana LOWE, “Warrior Societies in Contemporary Indigenous Communities” (Ipperwash Inquiry, May 2005). ALFRED, Taiaiake, Peace, Power and Righteousness : an indigenous manifesto (Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 1999). ALFRED, Gerald R., Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism (Toronto: Oxford, 1995). ALLEN, Paula Gunn, The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions (Boston: Beacon Press, 1986). ALLEN, Robert S., His Majesty's Indian Allies: British Indian Policy in the Defence of Canada, 1774-1815 (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1992). ALLEN, Theodore W., The Invention of the White Race v.1 Racial Oppression and Social Control (London: Verso, 1994). ANAYA, S. James, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). ANAYA, S. James, “Indigenous Rights Norms in Contemproary International Law” (1991) 8 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 1. ANDERSON, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism rev. ed. (London: Verso, 1991). ANNETT, Kevin D., Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust 2nd ed. (Vancouver: www.hiddenfromhistory.org, 2005). APPIAH, Kwame Anthony, “Is the Post in Post-Modernism the Post in Post-Colonial” 17.2 Critical Inquiry (1991) 336. APPIAH, Kwame Anthony, “The Postcolonial and the Postmodern” in Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin eds. The Post- Colonial Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1995), 119. ASAD, Talal, “Two European Images of Non-European Rule” in Talal Asad ed. Anthropology and the colonial Encounter (London: Ithica Press, 1973), 103. ASCH, Michael, “From Terra Nullius to Affirmation: Reconciling Aboriginal Rights with the Canadian Constitution” (2002) 17.2 Can. J. Law & Soc. 23.      PAGE  9 ASCH, Michael, ed., Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference” (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 1997). ASCH, Michael and Norman ZLOTKIN, “Affirming Aboriginal Title : A New Basis for Comprehensive Claims Negotiations” in Michael ASCH, ed. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference”  (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 1997). ASCH, Michael, “Aboriginal Self-government and the Construction of Canadian Constitutional Identity” (1992) 30 Alta. L. Rev. 465. ASCH, Michael and Patrick MACKLEM, “Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Sovereignty” (1991) 29 Alta. L. Rev. 498. ASHCROFT, Bill, Gareth GRIFFITHS and Helen TIFFIN, Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts (London: Routledge, 2000). ASHCROFT, Bill, Gareth GRIFFITHS and Helen TIFFIN, eds., The Postcolonial Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1995). ASHCROFT, Bill, Gareth GRIFFITHS and Helen TIFFIN, eds., The Empire Writes Back: Theory and practice in post-colonial literatures (London: Routledge, 1989). ASSIER-ANDRIEU, Louis, “L’anthropologie et la modernité du droit” (1989) 13.1 Anthropologie et Sociétés, 21. ASSIER-ANDRIEU, Louis, Le people et la loi: Anthropologie historique des droits paysans en Catalogne française (Paris: Librarie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1987). AUSTIN, John, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and The Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1955 reprint of 1832). BACKHOUSE, Constance, Carnal Crimes: Sexual Assault Law in Canada, 1900-1975 (Toronto, the Osgoode Society, 2008). BACKHOUSE, Constance, “Attentat à la dignité du Parlement: Viol dans l’enceinte de la Chambre des commmmunes, Ottawa 1929” (2001-2) 33 R.D. Ottawa 95. BAILYN, Bernard, The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986). BAKER, J.H, An Introduction to English Legal History 2nd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1979). BAKER, J.H., “The Three Languages of the Common Law” (1998) 43 McGill L.J.5. BALL, Terence, “Models of Power, Past and Present” (1975) J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 211. BAMSHAD, Michael J., Steve E. OLSON. “Does Race Exist?” Scientific American 289:6 (Dec. 2003) 78. BARMAN, Jean, Stanley Park’s Secret: The Forgotten Families of Whoi Whoi, Kanaka Ranch and Brockton Point (Vancouver: Harbour Publishing, 2005). BARSH, Russel Lawrence and  James (Sakej) Youngblood HENDERSON, “The Supreme Court’s Van der Peet Trilogy: Naïve Imperialism and Ropes of Sand” (1997) 42 McGill L. J. 993.      PAGE  10 BARSH, Russel Lawrence, “Indigenous Peoples in the 1990’s: From Object to Subject of International Law?” (1994) 7 Harv. Hum. Rts J. 33. BARSH, Russel Lawrence, “An Advocates Guide to the Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples” (1990) 15 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 209. BARTLETT, Richard H., Indian Reserves and Aboriginal Lands in Canada (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, Native Law Centre, 1990). BARTLETT, Richard H., Indians and Taxation in Canada (University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1986). BARTLETT, Richard H., “Citizens Minus: Indians and the Right to Vote” (1979) 44 Sask. L. Rev. 163. BARTLETT, Richard H., “The Indian Act of Canada” (1978) 27 Buffalo Law Rev. 581. BARREIRO, José., “Return of the Wampum” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992). BARRY, Boubacar, Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade (Cambridge University Press, 1998). BATTISTE, Marie ed. Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 2000). BAUM, Frank L., The New Wizard of Oz (Chicago: Baum and Denslow, 1900). BEAULIEU, Alain, “Les guaranties d’un traité disparu: le traité d’Oswagatchie, 20 août 1760” (2000) 34 R.J.T. 329. BECKER, Mary Druke, “We Are an Independent Nation”: A History of Iroquois Sovereignty” (1998) 46 Buffalo L. Rev. 981. BELICH, James., The Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict: The Maori, The British, and the New Zealand Wars (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1986). BELL, Catherine and David KAHANE eds., Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 2004). BELL, Catherine, “The Promise of Marshall on the Prairies: A Framework for Analysing Unfulfilled Treaty Promises” (2000) 63 Sask. L. Rev. 667-700. BELL, Catherine and Michael ASCH, “Challenging Assumptions : The Impact of Precedent in Aboriginal Rights Litigation” in Michael Asch ed. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference” (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 1997) 38. BELL, Catherine, “Comment on Partners in Confederation, A Report on Self-Government by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples”. (1993) U.B.C. L. Rev. 361-375. BELL, Lucy, “Kwakwaka’awkw Laws and Perspectives Regarding Property” (2006) 5 Indigenous L. J. 119. BEMIS, Samuel Flagg, Jay's Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962). BENN, Carl, The Iroquois in the War of 1812 (University of Toronto Press, 1999).      PAGE  11 BERNIER, Ivan and Andrée LAJOIE, The Supreme Court of Canada as an Instrument of Political Change (University of Toronto Press, 1986). BHABHA, Homi K., “Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree Outside New Delhi, May 1817” (Autumn, 1985) Critical Inquiry, 144. BHABHA, Homi K., “The Other Question: Stereotype, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism ” in The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994). BIBER, Katherine, “Being/Nothing: Native Title and Fantasy Fulfilment” (2004) 3 Indigenous L.J. 1. BISHOP, John Douglas, “The Lockean Basis of Iroquoian Land Ownership” 1:1 Jo. Aboriginal Economic Development 35. BISSONNETTE, Alain, “Le droit à l’autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones : un phoenix qui renaîtra des cendres” (1993) 24 R.D.G. 5 – 25. BLACKSTONE, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England  (1765 – 1769, Stanley N. Katz intro. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press facsimile). BLANCHARD, David, Seven Generations: A History of the Kanionke’haka (Kanawake: Centre for Curriculum Development, Kanawake Survival School, 1980). BLAUT, James M. The National Question: Decolonizing the Theory of Nationalism (London: Zed Books, 1987). BLUEHOUSE, Philmer and James Zion, “Hoozhooji Naat’aanii: The Navaho Justice and Harmony Ceremony” (1993) 10.4 Mediation Quarterly, 328. BODE, Derk, Clarence MORRIS, Law in Imperial China (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967). BOERSIG, John, “Indigenous Youth and the Criminal Justice System” (2003) 8:2 Justice as Healing 8. BOGIN, Meg, Les femmes troubadours (Paris:Denoël/Gonthier, 1978 transl. The Women Troubadours, London: Paddington Press, 1976). BOLDT, Menno and J. Anthony LONG, The Quest for Justice: Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985). BONAPARTE, Darren, A Lily Among Thorns: The Mohawk Repatriation of Kateri Tekahkwi:tha (Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Territory: The Wampum Chronicles, 2009). BONAPARTE, Darren, Creation and Confederation: The Living History of the Iroquois (Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Territory: The Wampum Chronicles, 2006). BONAPARTE, Darren, “The Two Row Wampum Belt: An Akwesasne Tradition of the Vessel and Canoe” http://www.wampumchronicles.com repro. of The People’s Voice, 5 Aug., 2005). BONAPARTE, Darren, “The First Families of Akwesasne” The People’s Voice 15 April 2005 http://www.wampumchronices.com.      PAGE  12 BONAPARTE, Darren Akiatonharonkwen. “The Seven Nations of Canada: The Other Iroquois Confederacy” www.wampumchronicles.com (1999). BONENFANT, J.C. Bonenfant, “Les Canadiens français et la naissance de la Confédération”, [1952] C.H.A.R. 39. BORROWS, John, Canada’s Indigenous Constitution (University of Toronto Press, 2010). BORROWS, John, Drawing Out Law: A Spirit’s Guide (University of Toronto Press, 2010). BORROWS, John., “Crown and Aboriginal Occupation of Land: A History & Comparison” (Ipperwash Inquiry, 15 Oct. 2005) www.ipperwash.ca. BORROWS, John.,“Tracking Trajectories: Aboriginal Governance as an Aboriginal Right” (2005) 38:2 U.B.C. L. Rev. 285. BORROWS, John, “Questioning Canada’s Title to Land: Aboriginal Peoples and the Rule of Law” (Law Commission of Canada - B.C. Treaty Commission, Vancouver, 2000 [unpublished] BORROWS, John, “Sovereignty’s Alchemy: An Analysis of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia” (1999) 37.3 Osgoode Hall L.J. 537. BORROWS, John, “Wampum at Niagara: The Royal Proclamation, Canadian Legal History and Self-Government” in ASCH, Michael, ed. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference” (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 1997), 155. BORROWS, John, and Leonard I. ROTMAN, “The Sui Generis Nature of Aboriginal Rights: Does it Make a Difference ?” (1997) 36 Alta. L. Rev. 9. BORROWS, John, “With or Without You: First Nations Law (In Canada)” (1996) 41 McGill L. J. 629. BORROWS, John, “Constitutional Law from a First Nations Perspective: Self-Government and the Royal Proclamation” (1994) 28:1 U.B.C. L. Rev., 1. BORROWS, John, “Contemporary Traditional Equality: The Effect of the Charter on First Nations Politics” (1994) 43 U.N.B.L.J. 19. BORROWS, John J., “A Genealogy of Law: Inherent Sovereignty and First Nations Self-Governments” (1992) Osgoode Hall L. J. 291. BORROWS, John, and Leonard I. ROTMAN,  Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases, Materials and Commentary (Toronto: Butterworths, 1988). BOTTIGELLI-TISSERAND, Marcelle, Victor Stouvenel trans., Thomas More, l'Utopie (Paris: Editions sociales, 1974). BOURGEOIS, D.J., “The Role of the Historian in the Litigation Process” (1986) 67 Canadian Historical Review 195. BRASS, Eleanor, I Walk in Two Worlds (Calgary, Alberta: Glenbow Museum, 1987). BRODE, Patrick,  Sir John Beverley Robinson: Bone and Sinue of the Compact (Toronto: The Osgoode Society, 1984).      PAGE  13 BRÖLMANN, Catherine, René Lefeber, Marjoleine Zieck, Peoples and Minorities in International Law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992). BROWN, Dee, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971). BRUNER, J.S., and Leo POSTMAN, “On the Perception of Incongruity: a Paradigm” (1949)  18 J. Personality,  206. BRYANT, Michael J., “Aboriginal Self-Determination: The Status of Canadian Aboriginal Peoples at International Law” (1992) 56 Sask. L. Rev., 267. BUCKLEY, Helen, From Wooden Ploughs to Welfare: Why Indian Policy Failed in the Prairie Provinces (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992). BURFORD, Gale, Joan PENNELL and Susan MacLEOD, Family Group Decision Making Project: Manual for Coordinators and Communities 3rd ed. (St. John’s: Memorial University, Newfoundland, 1995). BURTON, Bruce A., “Squanto’s Legacy: The Origin of the Town Meeting” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992), 107. CAIRNS, Alan, “Kenneth Lysk, The Hawthorn Report, and “The Unique Constitutional Position of the Canadian Indian” (2005) 38.2 U.B.C.  L. Rev. 275. CAIRNS, Alan C., Tom FLANAGAN and Dan RUSSELL, Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2000). CANTOR, Norman F., William Stubbs on the English Constitution (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966). CARRINGTON, Peter, “Bede and those cussed natives again” (1996) 13 British Archaeology. CARTER, Sarah, Capturing Women: The Manipulation of Cultural Imagery in Canada’s Prairie West (Montreal: McGill Queen’s, 1997). CARTER, Sarah, Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy (Montreal: Queens-McGill Press, 1990). CASSESE, Anthony, “Political Self-Determination – Old Concepts and New Developments” in UN Law/ Fundamental Rights: Two Topics in International Law (Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands, 1979). CASSIDY, Frank, ed., Aboriginal Title in British Columbia: Delgamuukw v. The Queen  (Lantzville: Oolichan Press, 1992). CHALMERS, Harvey and Ethel Brant MONTURE, Joseph Brant: Mohawk (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1955). CHAMBERLAIN, M.E, Decolonization: The Fall of the European Empires (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985). CHANG, K.C., Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1977).      PAGE  14 CHARLEVOIX,  Rev. Peter Francis Xavier de. , John Gilmary Shea trans., History and General Description of New France, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1962 reprint of 1866 trans. of 1743)  vol.1. CHARRON, François, ed., Imaginaires surréalistes: poésie 1946- 1960   (Montreal: Les herbes rouges, 2001). CHARRON, Louise, “Remarks of the Honourable Louise Charron”, (Ottawa: Swearing-in Ceremony, 4 October, 2004) http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca (6/11/2006). CHARTRAND, Paul L. A. H., ed., Who are Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples? Recognition, Definition and Jurisdiction (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2002). CHASE, Stephen A., “Implications of the Marshall Case”, http://www.asf.ca/govaffairs/marshallcomments.html (2/17/06) CHESHIRE, Katherine, (Touch the Earth Foundation) “Quest of the Hopi and of the Six Nations” http://www.thehopiway.com/content/messages/speeches.htm. CHISHOLM, Archibald, “The Native Worker and the Mandatory Clauses” in Labour’s Magna Charta: A critical study of the labour clauses of the peace treaty and of the draft conventions and recommendations of the Washington International Labour conference (New York: Longmans, Green and co., 1921). CHO, H., “T’alsikminji Chisikin ui Kullikki wa Samilkki [Reading Texts, Reading Life: The Point of View of  a Post-Colonial Intellectual]” 3 vols. (Seoul: Ttohaniuimunhwa Press, 1992- 4). CHRISTENSEN, Deanna, Ahtahkakoop: The Epic Account of a Plains Cree Head Chief, His People, and Their Struggle for Survival, 1816-1896 (Shell Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada: Ahtahkakoop Publishing, 2000). CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Aboriginal Citizenship, Section 35, Section 15 and Section 25” (2003) 7:4 Citizenship Studies 48. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Judicial Justification of Recent Developments in Aboriginal Law” (2002) 17:2 Can. J. L. & Soc. 41. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Law, Theory and Aboriginal Peoples” (2002) 2 Indigenous L.J. 70. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State by Alan C. Cairn, Book Review” (2002) 40 Osgoode Hall L.J. 189. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Delgamuukw and the protection of Aboriginal Land Interests” (2000-2001) 32 Ottawa L. Rev. 85. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Justifying Principles of Treaty Interpretation” (2000) 26 Queen’s L.J. 143. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “The Nature of Delgamuukw” (Aug. 2000) Windspeaker www.ammsa.com/windspeaker/windguest2000.html#anchor 3129870. CHRISTIE, Gordon, “Aboriginal Rights, Aboriginal Culture, and Protection” (1998) 36.3 Osgoode Hall L.J. 448. CHURCHILL, Ward, “The Crucible of American Indian Identity: Native Tradition versus Colonial Imposition in Postconquest      PAGE  15 North America”(1999) 23:1 American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 39. CHURCHILL, Ward, Since Predator Came: Notes from the Struggle for American Indian Liberation (Littleton, Colorado: Aigis Publications, 1995). CHURCHILL, Ward, From A Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism, 1985 –1995 (Boston: South End Press, 1996). CHUTE, Janet E., The Legacy of Shingwaukonse: A Century of Native Leadership (University of Toronto Press, 1998). CLARK, Bruce, Native Liberty: Crown Sovereignty: The Existing Aboriginal Right of Self-Government in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1990). CLOUTIER, Edmond, Acte de L’Amérique du nord britannique et modifications y apportées, 1867-1951 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1952). COATES, Ken, “Writing First Nations into Canadian History: A Review of Recent Scholarly Works” http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/811/811-COATS.html. (12/1/2006). COATES, Ken, The Marshall Decision and Native Rights (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000). COETZEE, J.M., “Newton and the Ideal of a Transparent Scientific Language” (1982) 11.1 Journal of Literary Semantics, 3. COLDEN, Cadwallader, The Five Indian Nations Depending on the Province of New-York in America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1964 reprint of Pt.1 1727; Pt.2 1747). COLDHAM, Peter Wilson, The Complete Book of Emigrants in Bondage, 1614-1775 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1988). COLLEY, Linda,  Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600 – 1850 (New York: Anchor Books, 2002). COLLEY, Linda, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 (London: Random House, 1992). CONRAD, Joseph, “Heart of Darkness” in Three Tales by Joseph Conrad (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1960) published earlier in Youth and Two Other Stories (Garden City: Doubleday, Page, 1925). COOKE OF THORNDON,  Lord, “The Judge in an Evolving Society”, http://www:/upf.pf/recherché/IRIDIP/RJP4/01Cooke.doc. (17/12/97). COOMBE, Rosemary J., “The Properties of Culture and the Politics of Possessing Identity: Native Claims in the Cultural Appropriation Controversy” (1993) 6:2 Can. J. L. & Jur. 249. COREDON, Christopher, Anne WILLIAMS, A Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004). CORK, Ella, The Worst of the Bargain (San Jacinto, Calif: Foundation for Social Research, c.1962) CORMACK, Lesley B., “Britannia Rules the Waves? Images of Empire in Elizabethan England” (1998) 4.2 Early Modern Literary Studies 10. CÔTÉ, Louise, Louis TARDIVEL, Denis VAUGEOIS, L’Indien Généreux: Ce que le monde doit aux Amériques (Québec : Boréal, 1992).      PAGE  16 CÔTÉ, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd ed.) (Scarborough, Ont : Carswell, 2000), 290. COVER, Robert M., “Violence and the Word” (1986) 95 Yale L.J. 1601. CRAFFORD, F.S., Jan Smuts: a Biography (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1943). CRONON, William, Changes in the Land, Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (New York : Hill and Wang, 1983). CROW DOG, Leonard and Richard ERDOES, Crow Dog: Four Generations of Sioux Medicine Men (New York : Harper Perennial, 1996). CROW DOG, Mary and Richard ERDOES, Lakota Woman ( New York: Harper Perennial, 1991). CRUISE, David, Alison GRIFFITHS, The Great Adventure: How the Mounties Conquered the West (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996). CULHANE, Dara, The Pleasure of the Crown (Burnaby, B.C., Canada: Talon Books, 1998). CULHANE, Dara, “Adding Insult to Injury: Her Majesty’s Anthropologist” (1992) 95 B.C. Studies, 66. CULLER, A.D., The Imperial Intellect (New Haven, 1955). DALLIER, Patrick and Alain PELLET, Nguyen Quoc Dinh Droit International Public, 6th ed. (Paris: L.D.G.J. 1999). DARIAN-SMITH, E., “Postcolonial Law” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences vol.17 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001) [11844]. DARIAN-SMITH, Eve, “Postcolonialism: A Brief Introduction” (1996) 5(3) Social and Legal Studies 291. DAWSON, Robert MacGregor, The Government of Canada 2nd ed. (University of Toronto Press, 1954). DAWSON, Robert MacGregor, The Development of Dominion Status (London: Oxford University Press, 1937). DECKER, George P., “War on the Peaceful Iroquois” (Current History, September, 1923)  964. DEER, Kenneth, “The Failure of International Law to Assist Aboriginal Peoples” in Andrea P. Morrison ed Justice for Natives: Searching for Common Ground  (Montreal:Aboriginal Law Association of McGill University, 1994),  99. DEMOS, John, The Unredeemed Captive: A Family Story From Early America (New York: Vintage Books, 1995). DENIS, Claude, We are Not You: First Nations and Canadian Modernity (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1997). DESKAHEH (Levi General), “The Last Speech of Des-ka-heh” (1980) 3.11 Ontario Indian. DESKAHEH, The Redman’s Appeal for Justice (Brantford: D. Wilson Moore Ltd., 1924). DESROSIERS, Léo-Paul, Iroquoisie (Sillery, Québec: Les Éditions Septentrion, 1998). DIAMOND, Jared, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (New York: W.W. Norton and Co.1997).      PAGE  17 DICEY, A.V., Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, (London: Macmillan and Co., 1885). DICKASON, Olive Patricia, Canada's First Nations: A History of the Founding Peoples from Earliest Times 2nd ed.(Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1997). DICKASON, Olive Patricia, Le Mythe du Sauvage trans. Jude Des Chenes [The Myth of the Savage (University of Alberta Press, 1984)] (Sillery, Québec Septentrion, 1993). DICKINSON, G.M. and R.D. GIDNEY, “History and Advocacy: Some Reflections on the Historian’s Role in Litigation” (1987) 68.4 Canadian Historical Review, 576. DICKSON-GILMORE, E. Jane, “This is my history, I know who I am”: History, Factionalist Competition, and the Assumption of Imposition in the Kahnawake Mohawk Nation” (1999) 46:3 Ethnohistory 429. DIOP, Cheikh Anta, Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology  Harold J. Salemon and Marjolin de Jagger eds., Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi trans from French (Booklyn, N.Y.:Lawrence Hill Books, 1991). DIRLIK, Arif, “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” (1994) 20 Critical Inquiry 328. DONOVAN, Brian, “The Evolution and Present Status of Common Law Aboriginal Title in Canada: The Law’s Crooked Path and the Hollow Promise of  Delgamuukw” (2001) 35.1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 43. DONOVAN, Brian, “Common Law Origins of Aboriginal Entitlements to Land” (2003) 29:3 Man. L.J. 289. DOXTATER (Horn-Miller), Kahente, “From Painting to Power: The meaning of the Warrior Flag twenty years after Oka” 6(1) Socialist Studies, Spring 2010, 96. DOXTATER, THOHAHOKEN Michael, “The Apologia Canadiana lessons for an Indian Bording School Apologia Americana (Fall 2009) 20(3) Indigenous Poolicy Journal, 1. DOUGHTY, Arthur G., The Acadian Exiles: A Chronicle of the Land of Evangeline, (Toronto, Glasgow : Brook and Company, 1916). DROBAK, John N., Norms and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006). DRUKE, Mary A. “Iroquois Treaties: Common Forms, Varying Interpretations” in Francis JENNINGS ed. The History and Cul;ture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations andTheir League (Syracuse University Press, 1985) 85. DUNCAN, Sara Jeanette, The Imperialist (Toronto, Copp Clark, 1904 reprinted McClelland and Stewart, 1971). DUPUIS, Réné, “Des écarts importants entre la Convention No. 169 de l’O.I.T. et le Droit Canadien” (1994-5) 24.4 Recherches amérindiennes au Québec. DUSSAULT, René interviewed by Andrée Lajoie, “L’avenir passe par la reconnaissance, le partage et le respect”(2002) 17 :2 Can. J. L. & Soc. 9.      PAGE  18 DUVENDAK, J.J.L., The Book of Lord Shang (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963). DWORKIN, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Harvard University Press, 1986). ECKERT, Allan W. A Sorrow In Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh (New York: Konecky and Konecky, 1992). EDWARDS, Harry T., “Judicial Norms: A Judge’s Perspective” ” in John N. DROBAK Norms and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 139. EGAN, Brian Francis, From Dispossession to Decolonization; Towards a Critical Indigenous Geography of Hul’qumi’num Territory, (Ph.D. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University. Ottawa, 2008). EIDE, Asbjörn, “Multicultural and Intercultural Education: Conditions for Constructive Group Accommodation”(2000) 12.1 R.Q.D.I. 19. ELLIOTT, Law and Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (2nd ed) (North York, Ontario: Canadian Legal Studies Series. Captus Press, 1994). EMANUELLI, Claude, Droit international public, Tome I, Les fondements, les sources, les Etats 2e ed. (Montreal: Wilson, LaFleur, 1993). ENNIS, Dan, “Marshall decision validates the traditional form of Indian governance: Sharing our Wabanaki Perspective”, http://www.unb.ca (2/17/06). ESHERICK, Joseph W., The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (University of  California Pres, 1987). EVISON, Martin, “Lo the conquering hero comes (or not)”, (1997) 23 British Archaeology http://britarch.ac.uk. FABIAN, Johannes, Language and Colonial Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986). FANON, Franz, Constance Farrington trans., The Wretched of the Earth, (New York : Grove Press, 1963). FEEST, Christian F. ed. Indians and Europe: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays (Aachen: Herodot, Rader-Verl, 1987). FENTON, William, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998). FENTON, William N., “Collecting Materials for a Political History of the Six Nations,” (1949) 43 A.P.S.P. 233. FERGUSON, Niall, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (New York: Basic Books, 2003). FINNANE, Mark, “The Tides of Customary Law” [2006] ANZLH E- Journal, ANZLH E-Journal http://www.anzlhsejournal.auckland.ac.nz. FISHER, R., ‘Judging History: Reflections on the Reasons for Judgment in Delgamuukw v. B.C.” (1992) 95 B.C. Studies 43. FIXICO, Donald L., The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge (New York: Routledge, 2003).      PAGE  19 FLANAGAN, Tom, First Nations? Second Thoughts (Montreal: Queen’s McGill University Press, 2000). FLERAS, Augie and Jean Leonard ELLIOTT, The Nations Within: Aboriginal-State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992). FLETCHAS, Las Cuatro A.C./Four Arrows, “Forging a New Relationship between First Nations and the Crown” (1998) Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation http://collections.ic.gc.ca/keeseekoowenin (6/16/2006). FONTAINE, Lorena Sekwan, “Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts Review” (2005) 31 Queens L. J. 912. FORSEY, Eugene A., How Canadians Govern Themselves 5th ed. (Ottawa : Canada, Library of Parliament, Public Information Office, 1980, 2003). FOSTER, B.O., trans. Livy Book III Loeb Classical Library v.1. (London: Wm. Heineman Ltd, 1957) . FOSTER, Michael K., “Another Look at the Function of Wampum in Iroquois-White Councils” in Francis JENNINGS, William N. FENTON, Mary A DRUKE, David R. MILLER eds The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations and Their League (Syracuse University Press, 1985), 99. FOSTER, Michael K., Jack CAMPISI, Marianne MITHUN eds., Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984). FOUCAULT, Michel, Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975). FRAENKEL, Peter, Roger MURRAY, The Namibians, Minority Rights Group Report No. 19 (London: Minority Rights Group, 1985). FRANKLIN, Benjamin, “The Rattle Snake as a Symbol of America”, The Pennsylvania Journal (27 Dec. 1775)  in  J.A. Léo LEMAY ed. Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987) 746. FREEMAN, Victoria, Distant Relations: How My Ancestors Colonized North America (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2000). FREMONT, Donatien, Solange Lavigne trans., The Secretaries of Louis Riel (Prince Albert, Sask.: La Société Canadienne Française, 1985). FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M., “Judging the Judges: Some Remarks on the Way Judges Think and the Way Judges Act” in John N. DROBAK, Norms and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 139. FRYER, Mary Beacock, Christopher DRACOTT, John Graves Simcoe, 1752-1806, A Biography (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1998). FUKUDA-PARR, Sakiko, director and lead author; Cait Murphy, Bruce Ross-Larson eds., Human Development Report, 2004: Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World  (United Nations Development Programme, http://hdr.undp.org, 2004). FURNISS, Elizabeth, Victims of Benevolence (Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1992). GAGNON, François Marc, La conversion par l’image (Montréal : Les Éditions Bellarmin, 1975).      PAGE  20 GLENN, H. Patrick, Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law (Oxford University Press, 2000). GONG, Gerrit W., The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). GOODLEAF, Donna, Entering the War Zone: A Mohawk Perspective on Resisting Invasions (Penticton, British Columbia, Canada: Theytus Books, 1995). GOODRICH, Leland M., Edvard HAMBRO and Anne Patricia SIMONS, Charter of the United Nations, Commentary and Documents 3d ed. rev. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969). GOODWILL, Jean and, Norma SLUMAN, John Tootoosis (Pemmican Publications, 1984). GRAMMOND, Sébastien, Les traités entre l’Etat canadien et les peuples autochtones (Cowansville, Québec: Les Éditions Yvon Blais, 1995). GRAYMONT, Barbara, The Iroquois, (New York : Chelsea House Publishers, 1988). GREEN, Michael D., “Expansion of European Colonization to the Mississippi Valley, 1780-1880” in Bruce G. TRIGGER, Wilcomb E. WASHBURN eds. The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 461. GREENE, Melissa Fay, Praying for Sheetrock (Reading Mass.: Addison-Welsley Publishing Company, 1991). GREENWALD, Andy, “Postcolonial Feminism in Nehanda”, The Literature and Culture of Zimbabwe www.victorianweb.org/post/zimbabwe/vera/greenwald1.html GRINDE, Donald A. Jr., “Iroquoian Political Concept and the Genesis of American Government” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornell University, 1992). GRINDE, Donald A. Jr., Bruce E. Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty, Native America and the Evolution of Democracy (Los Angeles: University of California, American Indian Studies Center, 1991). GRUHN, I.V., “State Formation” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences vol.22. (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001). GUILHAUDIS, Jean-François,  Le droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes (Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 1976). HAGEDORN, Nancy L., “Faithful, knowing, and prudent”: Andrew Montour as Interpreter and cultural Broker, 1740-1772 in Margaret Connell Szasz ed., Between Indian and White Worlds: The Cultural Broker (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994), 44. HALL, Anthony J. “The Making of an Indian fighter and a Potential Premier in B.C.”  (13 Feb. 2000, University of Lethbridge) [unpublished] HALL, Louis Karohiaktajeh, A Tale of One Mohawk: The Autobiography of Poet, Writer, Artist Louis Karohiaktajeh Hall (‘On the Edge of the Sky’) (Kahnawake Mohawk Territory, 1994)      PAGE  21 HALPIN, Andrew, “Glenn’s Legal Traditions of the World: Some Broader Philosophical Issues” (2006) 1:1 J. Comp. L. 116. HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE, Lord, Halsbury's Laws of England  4th ed.(London: Butterworths, 1996); Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed. (London, Butterworths, 1968). HAMILTON, Jonnette Watson, “The use of Metaphor and Narrative To Construct Gendered Hysteria In the Courts” (2002) 1 J. L. & Equality 155. HAMPSON, Norman,  The First European Revolution 1776-1815 (Norwich, G.B.: Jarrold and Sons, 1969). HANNUM, Hurst, Documents on Autonomy and Minority Rights (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993). HARRING, Sydney L., White Man's Law: Native People in Nineteenth- Century Canadian Jurisprudence (University of Toronto Press, 1998). HARRING, Sydney L., Crow Dog’s Case : American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century (New York : Cambridge University Press, 1994). HARRIOT, Thomas, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (New York, Dover, 1972 reprint of 1590). HARRIS, Cole, Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002). HARRIS, Douglas C., Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia (University of Toronto Press, 2001). HARRIS, Heather, Remembering 12,000 Years of History: Oral History, Indigenous Knowledge and Ways of Knowing in Northwestern North America (Ph.D, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, 2003). HARRY, Debra and Le’a Malia KANEHE, “The BS in Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS): Critical Questions for Indigenous Peoples” in Beth Burrows ed. The Catch: Perspectives on Benefit Sharing (Edmonds Institute, 2005). HARRY, Debra, Stephanie HOWARD, Brett Lee SHELTON, “Indigenous Peoples, Genes and Genetics: What Indigenous People Should Know About Biocolonialism, A Primer and Resource Guide” (Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, June 2000) http://www.ipcb.org/pub/IPGG.html . HART, H.L.A., The Concept of Law 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 reprint of 1961). HART, H.L.A., “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” (1958) 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593. HART, H.L.A., “Introduction” to John AUSTIN, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and The Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1955 reprint of 1832). HASTINGS, Hugh ed., Public Papers of George Clinton, First Governor of New York 1777-1795 –1801-1804 (Albany, Oliver A. Quayle, State Legislative Printer, 1904).      PAGE  22 HAUPTMAN, Laurence, Conspiracy of Interests: Iroquois Dispossession and the Rise of New York State (Syracuse University Press, 1999) HAVARD, Gilles, Phyllis Aronoff and Howard Scott trans., The Great Peace of Montreal: French-Native Diplomacy in the Seventeenth Century (Montreal: McGill-Queen, 2001). HAVEL, Vàclav, “Democracy’s Forgotten Dimension” (1995) 31:1 Stanford J. Int’l L. 1. HECHTER, Michael, Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development 1536-1966 (University of California Press, 1975) HENDERSON, James (Sakej) Youngblood, “Aboriginal Attorney General” (2003) 22 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 265. HENDERSON, James (Sakej) Youngblood, “Postcolonial Indigenous Legal Consciousness” (2002) 1 Indigenous L. J. 1. HENDERSON, James (Sakej) Youngblood, “Taking Equality into the 21st Century: An Aboriginal Commentary” (2000-2001) 12 Nat’l J. Const. L. 31. HENDERSON, James (Sakej) Youngblood, “Postcolonial Ghost Dancing: Diagnosing European Colonialism” in Marie BATTISTE, Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (University of British Columbia Press, 2000), 57. HENDERSON, Sakej,. “Mikmaw Tenure in Atlantic Canada” (1995) Dal. L.J. 194. HENDERSON, James (Sakej) Youngblood, “Empowering Treaty Federalism” (1994) 58 Sask. L. Rev. 241. HEPBURN, Samantha. “Feudal Tenure and Native Title: Revising an Enduring Fiction” (2005) Sydney Law Review http://www.austlii.edu.au  (6/4/2006) HEWITT, J.N.B., [critique of Parker, Scott and Beauchamps publications on Haudenosaunee legal custom] 19.3 American Anthropologist (New Series) 1917 429-238 in  A.C. HIBBITTS Bernard J., “Making Sense of Metaphors: Visuality, Aurality, and the Reconfiguration of American Legal Discourse” (1994) 16 Cardoso L. Rev. 229. HIGHAM, Nicholas, “Hengst and the Historians: An Introduction” in Rome Britain and the Anglo-Saxons (London: Sealby, 1992). HILDEBRANDT, Walter, Dorothy FIRST RIDER, Sarah CARTER, The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7 (Montreal: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 1996). HILL, Richard, “Oral Memory of the Haudenosaunee: Views of the Two Row Wampum” in Jose BARREIRO Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Akwe:Kon Press, 1992), 149. HILL, Richard, “Continuity of Haudenosaunee Government” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornell University, 1992), 166. HINDE, Thomas ed., The Domesday Book: England’s Heritage, Then and Now (Godalming, Surrey, England:CLB International, 1997).      PAGE  23 HOBSBAWM, Eric, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914 (London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd., 1987; New York, 1st Vintage Books ed., 1989), 85. HODDER-WILLIAMS, R., “Colonialism: Political Aspects” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001). HOFFMAN, Bernard Gilbert,“The Historical Ethnography of the Micmac of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, (PhD, Anthropology, University of California, 1955). HOGG, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada Loose-leaf Edition (Toronto: Carswell, updated to 1998). HOGG, P.W. and A.A. BUSHELL, “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing After All)” (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75. HOGG Peter W. and Mary Ellen TURPEL, “Implementing Aboriginal Self-Government: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues in, in   Aboriginal Self-Government: Legal and Constitutional Issues (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Canada, 1995), 377. HOGG, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1985). HOLBROOKE, Richard, “Introduction” in Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919 (New York: Random House, 2003). HOOPLE, Elizabeth L., Medicine Maid: The Life Story of a Canadian Pioneer (Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Co., 1977). HORN, Greg,  “McGill owes Six Nations more than 1.7 million” (10.12 Eastern Door, 13 April, 2001) http://www.easterndoor.com/10-12/10-12-2htm. HORN, Kahentineta. Traditional Culture and Community Competition: An Analysis of the On-Going Struggle Between the Great Law and the Handsome Lake Code (M.A., Canadian Studies, Carleton University, 1997). HORN-MILLER, K.ahente, “Otiyaner: The “Women’s Path” Through Colonialism” (2005) 29.2 Atlantis: A Women’s Studies Journal,  57. HORN-MILLER, Kahente, The Emergence of the Warrior Flag: A symbol of Indigenous unification and impetus to assertion of identity and rights commencing in the Kanionke’haka community of Kahnawake (M.A., Anthropology, Concordia University, 2003). HORN-MILLER, Kahente, “Bring Us Back into the Dance: Women of the Wasase” in Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman eds Colonize This! Young women of color on today’s feminism (New York: Seal Press, 2002), 230. HORNBY, A.S. and E.C. PARNWELL, eds., Oxford Intermediate Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, Simplified Character Edition (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1969 rev. 1987) HORVATH, Ronald J., “A Definition of Colonialism” (1992) 13:1 Current Anthropology  45.      PAGE  24 HOWES, David, “Culture in the Domains of Law” 20 Can. J. L & Soc. 9. HOXIE Frederick E. ed., Encyclopedia of North American Indians (New York, Houghten Mifflin, 1996). HUEY, Lois M.and Bonnie PULIS, Molly Brant: A Legacy of Her Own (Youngstown, New York: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997). HUIZER, Gerrit and Bruce MANNHEIM eds. The Politics of Anthropology: From Colonialism and Sexism Towards a View from Below (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979). HULSWÉ, A. F. P. Remnants of Ch'in Law: An annotated translation of the Ch'in legal and administrative rules of the 3rd century B.C. discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985). HULSWÉ, A. F. P. Remnants of Han Law (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1955). HUNTER, Claire E., “New Justification for an Old Approach: In Defence of Characterizing First Nations Treaties as Contracts” (2004) 62 U. T. Fac. L. Rev. 61. HUTCHINS, Peter W. and Tanya WHITESIDE, “Mixed Messages, Double Standards, Eurocentrism and High Hurdles: Evidentiary Challenges in Aboriginal Litigation” (Vancouver: Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, 2004). HUTCHINS, Peter W., Anjali CHOKSI, “From Calder to Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders?” in 2001 Constitutional Cases: Fifth Annual Analysis of the Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (Toronto: Osgoode Hall Law School, Continuing Legal Education, 12 April, 2001). HURLEY, Mary C., “Titre Aborigène: La décision de la Cour suprême du Canada dans Delgamuukw c. Colombie-britannique” (1998 rev. fév. 2000) Library of Parliament BP-459F. INDURKHYA, Bipin, “Rationality and reasoning with metaphors”(2007) 25 New Ideas in Psychology 16. IMAI, Shin, “Sound Science, Careful Policy Analysis, and Ongoing Relationships: Integrating Litigation and Negotiation in Aboriginal Lands and Resources Disputes” (2003) 41 Osgoode Hall L.J. 587. IMAI, Shin, “Aboriginal Rights: Creating Disincentives to Negotiate: Mitchell v. M.N.R.’s Potential Effect on dispute Resolution”. (2003) 22 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 309. IMAI, Shin, “Treaty Lands and Crown Obligations: The “Tracts Taken Up” Provision” (2001) 27 Queen’s L.J. 1. IRVING, H.B., The Life of Judge Jeffreys (London: Heinemann, 1898). ISAAC, Thomas,  Aboriginal Title (University of Saskatchewan, Native Law Centre, 2006). ISAAC, Thomas, “The Concept of the Crown and Aboriginal Self- Government” (1994) 14.2 Can. J. Native Studies, 221. ISAAC, Thomas, “Donald A. Grinde, Jr. and Bruce E. Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy (Los Angeles, California: University of California      PAGE  25 American Indian Studies Center, 1991)”[Book Review] (1992) 3 C.N.L.R. 1. ISAAC, Thomas, “The Storm over Aboriginal Self-Government: Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Redefinition of the Inherent Right of Aboriginal Self- Government” (1992) 2 C.N.L.R. 6. JACCOUD, Mylène, “La Justice pénale et les Autochtones: D’une justice imposé au transfert de pouvoirs” (2000) Can. J. L. & Soc. 107. JACCOUD, Mylène, Justice blanche au Nunavik (Montréal: Méridien, 1995). JACOBS, Beverley,  International Law/The Great Law of Peace, (LL.M., College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, 2000). JACOBS, J.M., “Postcolonial Geography” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001) vol 17. 11838. JACOBS, W. Richard, “Societies in Crisis: Introduction” in S. CRAIG ed. Contemporary Caribbean: A Sociological Reader,vol.2 (Trinidad and Tobago : S. Craig, 1982). JAIN, Jasbir, Problems of Postcolonial Literatures and other Essays (Jaipur: Printwell, 1991). JAMIESON, Roberta, “The First Nation Ombudsman: A Discussion Paper” (Symposium on Specialized Tribunals and First Nations Legal Institutions, Radisson Saskatoon Hotel: Indigenous Bar Association, 29-31 May, 2002.) JAYAWICKRAMA, Nihal, “The Right of Self-Determination – A Time for Reinvention and Renewal” (1993) 57 Sask. L. Rev.  1. JEMISON, G. Peter and Anna M. SCHEIN eds., Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000). JENKINS, Christopher D., “John Marshall’s Aboriginal Rights Theory and Its Treatment in Canadian Jurisprudence” (2001) 35.1 U.B.C. L.Rev. 1. JENKINS, R.S. Canadian Civics, Saskatchewan Edition (Toronto: Copp, Clark Company, Limited, 1919). JENNESS, Diamond, Indians of Canada 7th ed. (University of Toronto Press reprint of  Bulletin 65, Anthropological Series No. 15, National Museum of Canada, 1932). JENNINGS, Francis,William N. FENTON, Mary A DRUKE, David R. MILLER eds The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations and Their League (Syracuse University Press, 1985). JENNINGS, Francis, The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire (New York: W.W. Norton, 1984). JENNINGS, Francis, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975). JEWISS, Tom, “Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada by Patrick Macklem Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001” [book review] (2001)      PAGE  26 http://bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/macklempat.ht ml (3/2/06) JOHANSEN, Bruce E. Forgotten Founders: How the American Indian Helped Shape Democracy (Harvard: Harvard Common Press, 1982). JOHANSEN, Bruce,  Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and People (Clear Light Publishers, 1995). JOHNSON, D.H.N. “Consolidation as a Root of Title in International Law” [1955] Cambridge L.J. l215. JOHNSON, Edward, “Saxons and Vikings”, (1997) 26 British Archaeology, http://www.britarch.ac.uk. JOHNSTON, Charles M., “The Six Nations in the Grand River Valley, 1784-1847” c.8 in Edward S. ROGERS, Donald B. SMITH eds Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1994),167. JOHNSTON, Charles M., The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River (University of Toronto Press, 1964). JOHNSTON, Darlene, The Taking of Indian Lands in Canada: Consent or Coercion? (University of Saskatchewan, Native Law Centre, 1989). JOHNSTON, Darlene  M., “The Quest of the Six Nations Confederacy for Self-Determination” (1986) 44.1 U.T. Fac.L.Rev.1. JOHNSTON, Jean (nee Morton), “Molly Brant: Mohawk Matron” (1964) 56:2 Ontario History 105. KAMMEN, Michael, “The Meaning of Colonization in American Revolutionary Thought” (1970) 31:3 Jo. Hist. Ideas 337. KARONIAKTAJEH (Louis Hall), Mohawk trans. and Kahn-Tineta HORN, English trans., Gayanerekowa: The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy, (Kahnawake, Mohawk Territory:Owera International, 1993) owera@cyberglobe.net KARONIAKTAJEH, Warrior’s Hand Book (Kahnawake Mohawk Territory: Rotiskenrakete - Kahnawake Men's Society, 1997 reprint). KARSTEN, Peter, Between Law and Custom: “ High”  and “ Low” Legal Cultures in the Lands of the British Diaspora – The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, 1600-1900 (Cambridge University Press, 2002). KATIENIES, KAHENTINETHA, “Canada, United States, Mexico” Mohawk Nation News, 26 Sept, 2006, http://www.mohawknationnews.com. (9/27/2006). KAY, Paul and Willett KEMPTON, (1984) “What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hyoothesis? 86.1  Am. Anthropologist 65. KELLY, J.D., “Postcoloniality” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences vol.17 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001), 11844. KELSEN, Hans, The Law of the United Nations: A critical analysis of its fundamental problems (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1950).      PAGE  27 KENNEDY, David, “International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion” (1996) 65 Nordic J.  Int’l Law 385- 420. KHALDÛN, Ibn, The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal; N.J. Dawood trans. (Princeton University Press, Bollingen, 1967). KIRMAYER, Laurence J., Cécile Rousseau, Myrna Lashley, “The Place of Culture in Forensic Psychiatry” (2007) 35 J Am. Acad. Psychiatry & Law, 98. KIRMAYER, Laurence J. “Beyond the ‘New Cross-Cultural Psychiatry’: Cultural biology, Discursive Psychology and the Ironies of Globalization” (2006) 43.1 Transcultural Psychiatry 126. KIRMAYER, Laurence J., Gregory M. Brass, Caroline M. Tait “The Mental Health of Aboriginal Peoples: Transformations of Identity and Community” (2000) 45.7 Can. J. Psychiatry, 607. KIRMAYER, Laurence J. and Harry Minas, “The Future of Psychiatry: An International Perspective” (2000) 45.5 Can. J. Psychiatry, 438. KIRMAYER, Laurence J., “The Body’s Insistence on Meaning: Metaphor as Presentation and Representation in Illness Experience” (1992) 6:4 Medical Anthropology Quarterly 323. KNOCKWOOD,Isabelle, Out of the Depths: The Experiences of Mi’kmaw Children at the Indian Residential School at Schubenacadie, Nova Scotia (Lockeport, Nova Scotia: Roseway Publishing, 1992). KOMINAR, Robert A. , “Paradigms of Legal Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Perspective” (1991) 18 Queen’s L.J. 380. KUHN, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3rd ed. (London: University of Chicago Press, 1996 © 1962). KULCHYSKI, Peter ed. Unjust Relations: Aboriginal Rights in Canadian Courts (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1994). KYMLICKA, Will, Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada (Toronto: Oxford, 1998). LAFITAU, Joseph-Francois, Customs of the American Indians Compared with the Customs of Primitive Times 2 vol. trans. and ed. by William N. FENTON and Elizabeth L. MOORE (Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1974-1977). LAFITAU, Joseph-Francois, Moeurs des sauvages amériquains, comparées aux moeurs des premiers temps (Paris: Saugrain l'ainé, 1724). LAJOIE, Andrée and Mylene Jaccoud, eds, “Aboriginality and Normativity” (2002) 17:2 Can. J. Law & Soc. 1. LAJOIE, Andrée, Éric GÉLINEAU, Isabelle DUPLESSIS et Guy ROCHER, L’Intégration des valeurs et des intérêts autochtones dans le discours judicaire et normatif canadien (2000) 38.1 Osgoode Hall L.J. 141. LAJOIE, Andrée, Henry QUILLINAN, Rod MACDONALD et Guy ROCHER, “Pluralisme juridique à Kahnawake?” (1998) 39 Cahiers de Droit 681.      PAGE  28 LAJOIE, Andrée, Roderick A. MACDONALD, Richard JANDA, Guy ROCHER eds., Théories et émegence du droit: pluralisme, surdétermination et effectivité (Montréal: Les Éditions Thémis, 1998). LAJOIE, Andrée, Jugements de valeurs: le discours judiciare et le droit, coll.  « Les Voies du Droit » (Paris : Les Presses Universitaires de France, 1997). LAJOIE, Andrée, Jean-Maurice BRISSON, Sylvio NORMAND, Alain BISSONNETTE, Le statut juridique des peuples autochtones au Québec et le pluralisme (Cowansville, Yvon blais, 1996). LAJOIE, Andrée, Régine ROBIN, Sébastien GRAMMOND, Henry QUILLIAN, Louise ROLLAND, Stéphane PERRAULT,  Armand CHITRIT, “Les représentations de “société libre et démocratique”  à la cour Dickson: la rhétorique dans le discours judicaire canadien” (1994) 32.2 Osgoode Hall L. J. 295. LANDAU, Tommy, “Policing and security in four remote aboriginal communities: A challenge to coercive models of police work” (1996) Can. J. Criminology, 1. LAPRAIRIE, Carol, “La justice pénale chez les autochtones du Canada” (1989) 13.1 Anthropologie et Societés, 143. LAKOFF, George, “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf” http://3.iath.virginia.edu (12/19/04). LAKOFF, George, Mark JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago Press, 1980 with “Afterword” 2003). LAKOFF, George, Mark JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought (New York, Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 1999). LAKOFF, George, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (University of Chicago Press, 1987). LAROUSSE,  Le Petit Larousse illustré, 1996 (Paris: Larousse, 1995). LAWRENCE, Charles R. III, “The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism”, (1987) 39:2 Stanford L. Rev. 317. LEACOCK, Eleanor Burke, Myths of Male Dominance: Collected Articles on Women Cross-Culturally (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981). LEBEUF, M.E., “La construction sociale des lois criminelles: L’expérience canadienne concernant l’ivresse au volant” (1990) 14.4 Déviance et Société, 395-420. LECLAIR, Jean, “Les périls du totalisme conceptuel en droit et en sciences socials”,  (2009) vol.14 Lex Electronica http://www.lex-electronica.org/fr/resumes complets/233.html. LECLAIR, Jean,  “Aboriginal Rights as Seen through the Prism of Federalism” (Colloque Osgoode Hall School-Université de Montréal, York University, Dec. 2002) LECLAIR, Jean and Yves-Marie MORISSETTE, “L’indépendance judicaire et la Cour suprême: reconstruction historique      PAGE  29 douteuse et théorie constitutionnelle de complaisance” (1998) 36.3 Osgoode Hall L.J., 485. LEDERMAN, William R., “Canadian Constitutional Amending Procedures: 1867-1982”  (1984) 32 Am. J. Comp. L., 339. LEDERMAN, Sydney R., “Personal Reflections on Judicial Education in Canada” (2005) 38:2 U.B.C.L. Rev.561. LEE, Kyung-Won, “Is the Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full? Rethinking the Problems of Postcolonial Revisionism” (1997) 36.2 Cultural Critique, 89. LÉGER, Marie ed., Des peuples enfin reconnus: La quête de l’autonomie dans les Amériques (Montréal : Les Éditions Écosociété, 1994). LEGGE, James trans., The Chinese Classics 2nd. ed. rev. (Shanghai: Oxford University Press, 1935). LENIN, Vladimir Ilich, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination trans. of O prave natsii na samoopredelenie (New York: International Publishers, 1951). LEPAGE, Pierre, “Le long combat pour une reconnaissance international” in Marie LÉGER ed. Des peuples enfin reconnus: La quête de l’autonomie dans lesAmériques (Montréal : Les Éditions Écosociété, 1994). LEUPRECHT, Peter, “Reflections on Human Rights”, (1988) 9 H.R.L.J. 163. L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ, Claire, “From Many Different Stones: A House of Justice” [2003] 41.3 Alta L.Rev. 659. L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ, Claire, “The Length and Plurality of Supreme Court of Canada Decisions” [1990] 28.3 Alta L.Rev. 589. LI, Dun J., The Ageless Chinese (New York: Scribners, 1972). LOGAN, Clayton, “The Thanksgiving Address” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000). LOPEZ, Gerald P., “Lay Lawyering” (1984) 32:1 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1. LOOMBA, Ania, Colonialism/Postcolonialism (London: Routledge, 1998). LOVELACE, Sandra, “Award Address” in Andrea P. MORRISON ed. Justice for Natives: Searching for Common Ground (Montreal, Quebec: Aboriginal Law Association of McGill University, 1994), 26. LOWE, Vaughn and Colin WARBRICK eds, The United Nations and the Principles of International Law (London: Routledge, 1994). LOWELL, Lawrence, The Government of England (New York : MacMillan, 1926). LOWER, J.A., Canada: An Outline of History (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1973). LYON, Bryce,  A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1960, 1980). LYON, Noel, “An Essay on Constitutional Interpretation” (1988), 26 Osgoode Hall L.J. 95.      PAGE  30 LYONS, Oren, “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” in Jose BARREIRO Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University, Akwe:Kon Press, 1992). LYONS, Chief Oren (Joaguisho). “The Canandaigua Treaty: a View from the Six Nations” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 67. MAAKA, Margaret J., “E Kua te Manuka Tutahi: Decolonization, Self-Determination, and Education” (2004) 37.1 Educational Perspectives, 3. McCASLIN, Wanda D. ed. Justice as Healing: Indigenous Ways (St. Paul, Minnesota: Living Justice Press, 2005). McCLINTOCK, Anne, “The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term “Post-Colonialism” (1992) 31/32 Social Text, 84. MacDOUGALL, Hugh A., Racial Myth in English History: Trojans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (Montreal: Harvest House, 1982). McGEE, J.- C., Laurier, LaPointe, Saint-Laurent, Histoire politique de Quebec Est (Quebec: Belisle, 1948). McGOLDRICK, Dominic, “The Principle of Non-Intervention: Human Rights” in The United Nations and the Principle of International Law: Essays in Memory of Michael Akehurst (London: Routledge, 1994) 85. McHUGH, P.G., “Tales of Constitutional Origin and Crown Sovereignty in New Zealand” [2002] 52 U.T.L.J. 69. McHUGH, P.G., “The Common-Law Status of Colonies and Aboriginal “Rights”: How Lawyers and Historians Treat the Past” (1998) 61 Sask.L. Rev., 393. MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Welcome”, Supreme Court of Canada’s Home Page, http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/Welcome/index_e.asp (7/1/05). MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Lord Cooke Lecture”, (1 Dec. 2005) Wellington, New Zealand http://www.scc- csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeches (6/11/2006). MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Respecting Democratic Roles”, (22 Nov. 2004) http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeches (6/11/2006). MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Globalization, Identity and Citizenship”, (26 Oct. 2004) Ottawa, Ontario: ADM Forum, http://www.scc- csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeches (6/11/2006). MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Judging in a Democratic State”, (3 June, 2004) http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeches (6/11/2006). MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Protecting Constitutional Rights: A Coimparative View of the United States and Canada”, (5 April. 2004) http://www.scc- csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeches (6/11/2006). MCLACHLIN, Beverley, “Preserving Public Confidence in the Courts and the Legal Profession”, (2002) 29:3 Man. L.J., 277. MACLAINE, Craig and Michael BAXENDALE, This Land is Our Land: The Mohawk Revolt at Oka (Montreal: Optimum Publishing, 1990).      PAGE  31 MACMILLAN, Margaret, Paris, 1919 (New York: Random House, 2003). MCNEIL, Kent, “The Inherent Right of Self-Government: Emerging Directions for Legal Research” (Chilliwack: First Nations Governance Centre, 2004). MCNEIL, Kent, “Aboriginal Governments and the Charter: Lessons from the United States” (2002) 17:2 Can.J. L. & Soc. 73. MCNEIL, Kent, “Self-Government and the Inalienability of Aboriginal Title” (2001) 47 McGill L.J. 473. MCNEIL, Kent, “Extinguishment of Aboriginal Title in Canada: Treaties, Legislation, and Judicial Discretion” (2001-2002) 33:2 Ottawa L. Rev. 301. MCNEIL, Kent,  Emerging Justice: Essays on Indigenous Rights in Canada and Australia (Saskatoon: Native Law Centre, University of Saskatchewan, 2001). MCNEIL, Kent, “The Post-Delgamuukw Nature and Content of Aboriginal Title” (Toronto: Osgoode Hall Law School, 2000). MCNEIL, Kent, “Aboriginal Title and Section 88 of the Indian Act” (2000) 34.1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 159. MCNEIL, Kent, “Defining Aboriginal Title in the ‘90’s: Has the Supreme Court Finally Got it Right?” (Toronto, York University 12th Annual Robarts Lecture, 25 March, 1998) MCNEIL, Kent, “Aboriginal Title and the division of Powers: Rethinking Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction” (1998) 61 Sask. L. Rev. 431. MCNEIL, Kent, “The Meaning of Aboriginal Title” in Michael Asch ed. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference” (Vancouver : U.B.C. Press, 1997). MCNEIL, Kent, Common Law Aboriginal Title (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). MCNEIL, Kent, Native Claims in Rupert’s Land and the North- Western Territory: Canada’s Constitutional Obligations (University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1982). MCNEIL, Kent, Native Rights and the Boundaries of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory (University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1982). MCWHINNEY, Edward,  “The Constitutional Patriation Project, 1880- 82” (1984) 32 Am. J. Comp. L. 241. MACKLEM, Patrick, “Liberal Democracy and Tribal Peoples: Group Rights in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Introduction: The Maori Experience” (2002) 52 U.T. L.J. 1. MACKLEM, Patrick, Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001). MACKLEM, Patrick, “What’s Law Got to Do with It? The Protection of Aboriginal title in Canada” (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 125. MACKLEM, Patrick, “Aboriginal Rights and State Obligations” (1997) 36 Alta L.Rev. 97. MACKLEM, Patrick, “Les dimensions normatives du droit des autochtones à l’autonomie gouvernementale” in Aboriginal      PAGE  32 Self-Government: Legal and Constitutional Issues (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, Canada, 1995), 1. MACKLEM, Patrick, “First Nations Self-Government and the Borders of the Canadian Legal Imagination” (1991) 36 McGill L.J. 382. MADDOCK, Brian ed., History and Citizenship Education (Beaconsfield, Quebec: 2004). MAINE, Sir Henry Sumner, Ancient Law, Its connection with the early history of society and its relationship to modern ideas 4th Am. ed. from 10th London ed. (New York: Henry Holt and Co.,1884 reissue of 1861). MAJOR, R.H. trans., ed. Christopher Columbus: Four Vopyages to the New World: Letters and Selected Documents (New York: First Carol Publishing Group, 1992). MANDER, Christine, Emily Murphy: Rebel (Toronto: Simon & Pierre, 1985). MANN, Barbara, Iroquoian Women: the Ganitowisas (New York: Peter Lang, 2000). MANN, Charles C., “1491” (The Atlantic Monthly, March, 2002 http:/www.theatlantic.com. MANUEL, Arthur, “Aboriginal Rights on the Ground: Making Section 35 Meaningful” in Ardith Walkem, Halie Bruce eds Box of Treasures or Empty Box: Twenty Years of S.35 (Penticton: Theytus Books Ltd., 2003) 316. MARACLE, Brian, Back on the Rez, finding the way home (Toronto: Penguin, 1997). MARBURG, Theodore and Horace E. Flack eds., Taft Papers on League of Nations (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1920 Kraus Reprint Co., 1971). MAUBOURGET, Patrice, ed., Le Petit Larousse illustré, 1996 (Paris, Larousse, 1995). MEIDINGER, Errol E., “Introduction: Reconstituting Haudenosaunee Law, Sovereignty and Governance” (1998) 46 Buffalo L. Rev. 799. MEMMI, Albert, Howard Greenfield trans., The colonizer and the colonized [Portrait du Colonisé précédé du Portrait du Colonisateur] (New York; Orion Press, 1965). MERRELL, James H., “Some Thoughts on Colonial Historians and American Indians” (1989) 46:1 William and Mary Quarterly 94. MERRY, Sally E., “Legal Pluralism” (1988) 22 L. & Soc. Rev. 869. MILNER, Nina, “Duncan Campbell Scott (1862-1947)” National Library of Canada www.nlc-bnc/convers/bios/escott.htm (accessed 12 Sept, 2003) MITCHELL, John B., “Current Theories on Expert and Novice Thinking: A Full Faculty Considers the Implications for Legal Education” (1989) 39 J. Legal Ed. 275. MITFORD, Nancy,  Zelda (New York:Avon Books reprint of Harper and Row, 1970). MOCKLE, Daniel, “A propos de définitions du droit” (1991) 6 CJLS/RCDS 181.      PAGE  33 MOHAWK COUNCIL OF KAHNAWAKE, “Seigneury of Sault St. Louis” 2nd ed. (Seigneury of Sault St. Louis Office, www.kahnawake.com, 2004/2005). MOHAWK, John, “The Indian Way is a Thinking Tradition” in Jose BARREIRO Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University, Akwe:Kon Press, 1992), 20. MOHAWK, John C., “The Canandaigua Treaty in Historical Perspective” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 43. MOHAWK, John C., “Preface” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 1. MOMMSEN, T., P. KREUGER, A. WATSON, The Digest of Justinian (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). MONSER, Harold E. ed., The Cross-Reference Bible, American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible. (New York: The Cross- Reference Bible Company, 1910). MONTGOMERY, Malcolm, “The Legal Status of the Six Nations Indians in Canada” (1963) 55:2 Ontario History 93. MONTGOMERY, Malcolm, “Historiography of the Iroquois Indians 1925 – 1963” 55:4 Ontario History 247. MONTURE-ANGUS, Patricia, Thunder in my Soul: A Mohawk Woman Speaks (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 1995). MONTURE-OKANEE, Patricia A., “The Roles and Responsibilities of Aboriginal Women: Reclaiming Justice” (1992) 56 Sask. L. Rev. 237. MONMOUTH, Geoffrey of , Lewis Thorpe trans., The History of the Kings of England (London: Penguin 1966 trans. of c. 1136). MOODIE, Doug , “Thinking Outside the 20th Century Box: Revisiting ‘Mitchell’ – Some Comments on the Politics of Judicial Law- Making in the Context of Aboriginal Self-Government” (2004) 35:1 Ottawa L. Rev. 3. MOONEY, James, The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890 (University of Chicago Press, 1965 reprint of  the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Part II (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1896)). MOORE, Sally Falk, “Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Object of Study” 7 L. & Soc. Rev. 719. MORE, Thomas, Victor Stouvenel trans., L’utopie (Paris: Editions sociales, 1974). MORGAN, Henry Lewis, League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee, Iroquois, (Rochester: Sage and Brother, 1851). MORIN, Michel, “Les insuffisances d’une analyse purement historique des droits des peuples autochtones” in Ghislain Otis ed., Droit, territoire et gouvernance des peuples      PAGE  34 autochtones (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2004) 45. MORIN, Michel, Introduction historique au droit romain, au droit français et au droit anglais (Montréal: Les Éditions Thémis, 2004). MORIN, Michel, “Les insuffisances d’une analyse purement historique des droits des peuples autochtones” (2003) 57:2 Revue de L’Histoire de l’Amérique française 237. MORIN, “Quelques réflexions sur le rôle de l’histoire dans la détermination des droits ancestraux et issus de traités” (2000) 34 R.J.T. 329. MORIN, Michel, L’Usurpation de la souveraineté autochtone : Le cas des peuples de la Nouvelle- France et des colonies anglais de l’Amérique du Nord (Montréal: Boréal, 1997), 67. MORRIS, Alexander, The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories (Toronto : Belfords, Clarke and Co., 1880). MORRISON, Andrea P. ed., Justice for Natives: Searching for Common Ground (Montreal, Quebec: Aboriginal Law Association of McGill University, 1994). MORSE, Bradford W. Morse, “Permafrost Rights: Aboriginal Government and the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Pamajewon” (1997) 42 McGill L. J. 1011. MOSS, Laura, Is Canada Postcolonial? Unsettling Canadian Literature (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2003). MOSS, Laura, “The Changing Shapes of Postcolonial Theory” (2002) 173 Canadian Literature reviews www.canlit.ca/reviews/unassigned/444_moss.html. MOTZAFI-HALLER, Pnina, “Historical Narratives as Political Discourses of Identity” (1994) 20:3 Jo. of South African Studies, 417. MOYNIHAN, Patricia, “The Decolonization of Modern Law: Dismantling the Relation between Race and Liberal Law: A review of The Mythology of Modern Law by Peter Fitzpatrick, London , Routledge, 1992” (1993) 8 Can J. L. & Soc. 191. MUISE, Gertie Mai, “Where the Spirits Live: Women Rebuilding a Non-Status Mi’kmaq Community” in Kim Anderson and Bonita Lawrence eds. Strong Women Stories: Native Vision and Community Survival (Toronto: Sumach Press, 2003). MULLER, Kathryn V., “The Two “Mystery” Belts of Grand River: A Bibliography of the Two Row Wampum and the Friendship Belt” (2007) 31.1 Am. Indian Quarterly, 129. MULLER, Kathryn V., “Évolution et renouvellement du wampum à deux voies” in Alain Beaulieu et Maxime Gohier eds. La recherche relative aux Autochtones : Perspectives historiques et contemporaines (Montreal, Chaire de Recherche du Canada sur la question territoriale autochtone, 2005), 159. MURPHY, Emily, Clara Thomas ed. Janey Canuk in the West (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1975).      PAGE  35 MURRAY, Laura J. and Keren RICE, Talking on the Page: Editing Aboriginal Oral Texts (London: University of Toronto Press, 1999). MURU-LANNING, Marama, “The Analogous boundaries of Ngaati Muhuta Waikato-Tainui and Kiingitanga”, (2011) 120.1 Journal of the Polynesian Society, 9. MURU-LANNING, Marama, Tupuna Awa and Te Awa Tupuna: An Anthropological Study of Competing Discourses and Claims of Ownership to the Waikato River, (Ph.D. anthropology, University of Auckland, 2010). MYKYTA, Sky, “Losing Sight of the Big Picture: the Narrowing of Native Title in Australia” (2005) 36:1 Ottawa L. Rev. 95. NAPOLEON, Val, “Aboriginal Self-Determination: Individual Self and Collective Selves” (2005) 29.2 Atlantis 31. NAPOLEON, Val, “Extinction by Number: Colonialism Made Easy” (2001) 16:1 Can. J. L. & Soc. 113. NASH Gary B., The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America (New York : Viking, 1985). NEDELSKY, Jennifer, “Embodied diversity and the Challenges to Law” (1997) 42 McGill L. J. 91. NEDELSKY, Jennifer, “Reconceiving Rights as Relationships” (1993) 1.1 Rev. Const. Studies 1. NEDELSKY, Jennifer, “Law, Boundaries, and the Bounded Self”, (1990) 30 Representations 162. NEDELSKY, Jennifer, “Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities” (1989) 1 Yale J.L. & Feminism 7. NELSON, Craig E., “On the Persistence of Unicorns:  The Trade-off between Content and Critical Thinking Revisited” in B. Pescosolido and R. Aminzade eds. Social Worlds of Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century (Thousand Oaks, California: New Forge Press, 1999) 168. NEMNI, Max and Monique, William Johnson trans. Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2006. NEU, Dean and Richard THERRIEN, Accounting for Genocide: Canada’s Bureaucratic Assault on Aboriginal People (Black Point, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing, 2003). NICHOLAS, Clifton Arihwakehte ed., Karihwatatie (Kanesatake: Tsi Niionkwariho:ten Cultural Centre, 2003). NOLAN, Joan, ed, Kanien'keha:ka Owenna'shon:'a (Kahnawake: Mohawk Language and Curriculum Center, 1987) NOON, John  A.,  Law and Government of the Grand River Iroquois (New York: Viking, 1949). NOPPEN, Luc, Lucie K. MORISSET, Églises du Québec: un patrimoine à réinventer (Sainte-Foy, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2005). NOREAU, Pierre, “Comment la législation est-elle possible? Objectivation et subjectivation du lien social” (2001) 47 McGill L. J. 195.      PAGE  36 NOREAU, Pierre, “La Norme, le Commandement et la Loi: le droit comme objet d’analyse interdisciplinaire” (2000) Doit et Société 153. NOREAU, Pierre, “La superposition des conflits: limites de l’institution judicaire comme espace de résolution” (1998) Doit et Société 40. NORGREN, Jill, The Cherokee Cases, The Confrontation of Law and Politics (New York, McGrath Hill, 1996). NORRIE, Alan, “From Law to Popular Justice: Beyond Antinomialism” (1996) 5(3) Social & Legal Studies 383. NYGREN, Anja, “Struggle over Meanings: Reconstruction of Indigenous Mythology, Cultural Identity, and Social Representation” (1998) 45:1 Ethnohistory 31. O’CALLAGHAN, E.B. ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co., 1865- 1861). OCKLESHAW-JOHNSON, J.R., Tragic Plight of the Six Nations (Iroquois) Indians: Petition for the Intervention of the League of Nations and Non-Member States, 1933. OGUAMANAM, Chidi, “Indigenous Peoples and International Law: The Making of a Regime” (2004) 30 Queen’s L.J. 348. OPEKOPEW, Delia. “International Law, International Institutions, and Indigenous Issues” in Ruth Thompson ed. The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in International Law: Selected Essays on Self-Determination (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1987. OPEKOPEW, Delia. The Political and Legal Inequities among Aboriginal Peoples in Canada (Kingston, Ontario: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1987). OSMANCZYK, Edmund Jan, The Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Relations (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1990). OTIS, Ghislain ed., Droit, territoire et gouvernance des peuples autochtones (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2004). OTIS, Ghislain, “Élection, gouvernance traditionnelle et droits fondamentaux chez les peuples autochtones du Canada” (2004) 49 McGill L.J. 393. OTIS, Ghislain et André ÉMOND, “L’identité autochtone dans les traités contemporains: de l’extinction à l’affirmation du titre ancestral” (1996) 41 McGill L.J. 543. OTIS, Ghislain and Bjarne MELKEVIK, Peuples autochtones et normes internationales: Analyse et textes relatifs au régime de protection identitaire des peuples autochtones (Cowansville, Les Éditions Yvon Blais, 1996). PAKENHAM, Valerie, Out in the Noonday Sun: Edwardians in the Tropics (New York: Random House, 1985). PARKER, A.C., The Constitution of the Five Nations or the Iroquois Book of the Great Law [originally New York State Museum Bulletin: 184 (Albany:University of the State of New York, 1916)] (Ohsweken, Ontario: Iroqrafts, 1991).      PAGE  37 PARKER, A. C., The Code of Handsome Lake, the Seneca Prophet [New York State Museum Bulletin: 163 (Albany: University of the State of New York, 1913)] (Ohsweken, Ontario: Iroquois Reprint, 1990). PARKHILL, Thomas C., Weaving Ourselves into the Land: Charles Godfrey Leland, “Indians”, and the Study of Native American Religions (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997). PEJIC, Jelena, “Minority Rights in International Law” (1997) 19 Human Rights Quarterly 666. PENETITO, Wally, “Research and context for a theory of Maori schooling” (2002) 37:1 McGill Jo. Ed. 89. PENTNEY, William F., The Aboriginal Rights Provisions in the Constitution Act, 1982, (LL.M, University of Ottawa, 1987). PESCOLIDO, B. and R. AMINZADE eds., Social Worlds of Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century (Thousand Oaks, California: New Forge Press, 1999). PESKLEVITS, Richard, Customary Law, the Crown and the Common Law: Ancient Legal Islands in the Post-Colonial Stream, (LL.M., Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, 2002). PHARR, C. trans. The Theodocian Code (New York: Greenwood Press, 1952). POLLOCK, Frederick, “Introduction”, in Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law, (New York: Henry Hold and Company, 4th American from 10th London ed. of 1884). POLLOCK, Frederick and Frederic William MAITLAND, The History of English Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895). POPLAR, Mildred C, “We’re Fighting for Nationhood Not S. 35” in Ardith Walkem, Halie Bruce eds Box of Treasures of Empty Box: Twenty Years of S.35 (Penticton: Theytus Books Ltd.,2003) 23. PORTER, John, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada (University of Toronto Press, 1965). PORTER, Robert Odawi, “Tribal Disobedience” (Syracuse, N.Y.,The Centre for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship, Syracuse University College of Law, 20 Sept. 2005 draft). PORTER, Robert B., “Cleaning Up the Colonizer’s Mess: An Important Role for legal Scholarship About Indigenous Nations (2001-2002) 50 U. Kan. L.Rev. 431. PORTER, Robert B., “The Jurisdictional Relationship Between the Iroquois and New York State: An Analysis of 25 U.S.C. ss 232, 233” (1990) 27:497 Harvard J. on Legislation 497. PORTER, Tom, And Grandma Said…Iroquois Teachings as passed down through the oral tradition (www.xlibris.com 2008) PORTER, Tom. “Men Who Are of the Good Mind” in Jose BARREIRO Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University, Akwe:Kon Press, 1992), 12. POSTEMA, Gerald J. “Classical Common Law Jurisprudence (Part I)” (2002) 2.2 Oxford University Commonwealth L. J. 155.      PAGE  38 POSTEMA, Gerald J. “Melody and Law’s Mindfulness of time” [unpublished revision of  “Law’s Melody: Time and the Normativity of Law” presented to 21st IVR World Congress, Lund, Sweden, 2000.] POWLESS, Chief Irving Jr., “Treaty Making” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 15. POWLESS, Chief Irving Jr., “The Haudenosaunee, Yesterday and Today: A Conflict of Concepts and Laws” (1998) 46 Buffalo L. Rev. 1081. PROTHERO, G.W., Selected Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898). PURDY, Jeannine, Common Law and Colonised Peoples: Studies in Trinidad and Western Australia (Ashgate: Dartmouth, 1997). PURDY, Jeannine, “Postcolonialism: The Emperor’s New Clothes?” (1996) 5:3 Social & Legal Studies 405. PURICH, Donald John, “Indians and Income Tax: A Case Comment on Nowegijick v. The Queen” 40:1 Sask L. Rev. 122. QUINN, David Beers, Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584-1606 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985). RASMUSSEN, Derek, “La société inuit menacée de dissolution par l’école et l’argent: Le mythe de l’éducation des Inuit pour les tirer de l’ “enfance primitive” et les mener à l’age adulte economique” (Oct. 2000) 139 Interculture 1. RAY, A.J., “Creating the Image of the Savage in Defence of the Crown: The Ethnohistorian in Court” (1990) 6 Native Studies Rev. 25. REID, Gerald F., Kahnawa:ke: Factionalism, Traditionalism, and Nationalism in a Mohawk Community (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004). REINHARD, W., “History of Colonization and Colonialism” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences vol.4 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001), 2240. REINHARD, W., “State, History of” in Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001). REYNA, S.P., “Art and Mummery: Towards a social Anthropology of Hypocracy” http://les1.man.ac.uk/sa/Man99PolAnthPapers/stephen%20reyna. htm (2/20/2004)/ REYNOLDS, James I., A Breach of Duty: Fiduciary Obligations and Aboriginal Peoples (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2005). RICHARD, John D., “Federal Court of Appeal: Welcome” http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/index_e.shtml (7/29/05). RICHTER, Daniel K. The Ordeal of the Long-house: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization      PAGE  39 (Williamsburg, Virginia: University of North Carolina Press, 1992). RICHTER, Daniel K. “The States, the United States and the Canandaigua Treaty” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 76. RICKARD, Chief Clinton, Barbara Graymont ed., Fighting Tuscaroa: The Autobiography of Chief Clinton Rickard (Syracuse University Press, 1975). RICKARD, Joseph Sr., “Sovereignty Undermined by Forced citizenship and Restricted Passage Leads to Formation of the IDLA” (2001) Indian Defense League of America), http://tuscaroras.com/IDLA/index.html#deskaheh. RIDDELL, Walter A., Documents on Canadian Foreign Policy 1917- 1939 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1962). RIDDELL, William Renwick, The Constitution of Canada in its History and Practical Working (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917). RIDDELL, William Renwick, The Life of John Graves Simcoe, First Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Upper Canada 1792- 1796 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1926). RIDINGTON, Robin, “Fieldwork in Courtroom 53: A Witness to Delgamuukw” in Frank CASSIDY ed. Aboriginal Title in British Columbia: Delgamuukw v. The Queen  (Lantzville: Oolichan Press, 1992), 206. RISK, R.C.B., “On the Road to OZ: Common Law Scholarship About Federalism After World War II” (2001) 51 U. T. L. J 143. ROBERTS, Carol, “Susan Berk-Seligson,  The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) [book review] (1992) 12 C.N.L.R. 25. ROBERTSON  J.  Ross, ed., The Diary of Mrs. John Graves Simcoe, wife of the first Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Upper Canada, 1792-6 (Toronto: William Briggs, 1911). ROGERS, Edward S. and Donald B. SMITH eds., Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1994). ROHRLICH-LEAVITT, Ruby, Barbara SYKES and Elizabeth WEATHERFORD “Aboriginal Woman: Male and Female Anthrolopogical Perspectives” in Gerrit Huizer and Bruce Manheim eds. The Politics of Anthropology: From Colonialism and Sexism Towards a View from Below (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979). ROLLAND, Louise, Le Statut juridique du fœtus: analyse rhetorique, (LL.M., Université de Montréal, 1992). ROMNEY, Paul, Getting It Wrong : How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation (University of Toronto Press, 1999).      PAGE  40 ROSS, Alexander, “Hudson’s Bay Company versus Sayer” in Donald Swainson ed. Historical Essays on the Prairie Provinces (Toronto: 1970, McClelland and Stewart reprint of The Red River Settlement: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Status (London, 1856) pp372-386), 18. ROSS, Rupert, Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1996). ROSS, Rupert, Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring Indian Reality (Markham, Ontario: Octopus Publishing Group, Butterworths, 1992). ROSTKOWSKI, Joëlle, “The Redman’s Appeal for Justice: Deskaheh and the League of Nations” in Christian F. FEEST ed. Indians and Europe: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays (Aachen: Herodot, Rader-Verl, 1987). ROTH Paul A., “Ethnography Without Tears” (1989) 30:5 Current Anthropology 555. ROTMAN, Leonard, “Wewaykum: A New Spin on the Crown’s Fiduciary Obligations to Aboriginal Peoples?” (2004) 37:1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 219. ROTMAN, Leonard, “Conceptualizing Crown-Native Fiduciary Relations” (In Whom We Trust: A Forum on Fiduciary Relationships, Four Points Sheraton Hotel, 18-20 June, 2001). ROTMAN, Leonard, ““My Hovercraft is Full of Eels”: Smoking Out the Message in R. v. Marshall” (2000) 63 Sask. L. Rev. 617. ROTMAN, Leonard, “Forum on R. v. Marshall: Marshalling Principles from the Marshall Morass” (Spring, 2000) 23 Dalhousie L.J. 5. ROTMAN, Leonard, “Creating a Still-Life Out of Dynamic Objects: Rights Reductionism at the Supreme Court of Canada” (1997) 36 Alta. L. Rev. 1. ROWELL, Newton W., The British Empire and World Peace [Burwash Memorial Lectures delivered in Convocation Hall University of Toronto November 1921] (Toronto: Victoria College Press, 1922). ROULAND, Norbert, “Préface” in Michel Morin, Introduction historique au droit romain, au droit français et au droit anglais (Montréal: Les Éditions Thémis, 2004), xi. RUDDEN, Bernard, “The Numerus Clausus Principle” (2000) 110:1 Yale L.J. 1. RUSHDIE, Salman, Midnight’s Children (London, Johnathan Cape Ltd., 1981; Toronto, Canada: Random House, Vintage Canada Edition, 1997). RYDER, Bruce, “The Demise and Rise of the Classical Paradigm in Canadian Federalism: Promoting Autonomy for the Provinces and First Nations” (1991) 36 McGill L. J. 308. SAID, Edward W., Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1994). SAID, Edward, “Orientalism Reconsidered ” (1985) 1 Cultural Critique 89. SAID, Edward, Orientalism (London: Routledge, 1978).      PAGE  41 SAINT-AUBIN, Bernard, King et son époque (Montréal: La Presse, 1982). SANDERS, Douglas, “Remembering Deskaheh: Indigenous Peoples and International Law” in International Human Rights Law: Theory and Practice, Irwin COTLER and F. Pearl ELIADIS eds. (Montreal: The Canadian Human Rights Foundation, 1992), 485. SANDERS, Douglas, “Collective Rights” (1991) 13 Hum. Rts Q. 368. SARRIS, Greg, Keeping Slug Woman Alive: A Holistic Approach to American Indian Texts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). SAVARD, Julie-Rachel, “L’integration des Autochtones au régime seigneurial canadien: une approche renouvelée en histoire des Amérindiens” in Alain Beaulieu et Maxime Gohier eds. La recherche relative aux Autochtones: Perspectives historiques et contemporaines (Montreal, Chaire de Recherche du Canada sur la question territoriale autochtone, 2005), 169. SAVARD, Rémi, “Les peuples américains et le système judicaire canadien: Spéléologie d’un trou de mémoire” (2002) 17 :2 Can. J. L. & Soc. 123. SAVARD, Rémi, “Un projet d'État indien indépendent à la fin du XVIIIe siècle et le traité de Jay” (1994-5)  24.4 Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, 57. SAYWELL, John T., The Lawmakers: Judicial Powers and the Shaping of Canadian Federalism (University of Toronto Press, 2002). SCHAAF, Gregory, “The Birth of Frontier Democracy from an Eagle’s Eye View: The Great Law of Peace to the Constitution of the United States of America” in Iroquois Confederacy of Nations: Hearing before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 100th Congress, 1st sess. on S. Con. Res. 76, 2 Dec. 1987, Washington D.C. U.S.A., 57. SCHABAS, William A., “Canada and the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (1998) 43 McGill L.J. 403. SCHABAS, William A. and Daniel TURP, Droit international, canadien et québecois des Droits et Libertés: Notes et Documents (Cowansville, Quebec: Yvon Blais, 1994). SCHEVILL, F., A History of Europe (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1925). SCHULTE-TENCKHOFF, Isabelle, “Reassessing the Paradigm of Domestication: The Problematic of Indigenous Treaties” (1997) 4.2 Rev. Const. Studies 243. SCHULTE-TENCKHOFF, Isabelle, La question des peuples autochtones (Bruylant-Bruxelles, L.G.D.J. Paris, 1997). SCHULTE-TENCKHOFF, Isabelle, “Compte Rendu: Les traités entre l’État canadien et les peuples autochtones, Sébastien Grammond” (1996) 26 :2 Recherches amérindiens au Québec 89 . SCHULTE-TENCKHOFF, Isabelle and Tatjana ANSBACH, “Les minorités en droit international” in Alain Fenet dir. Le Droit et les Minorités: Analyses et textes (Bruxelles: Établissements Émile Bruylant, 1995) 15. SCHULZE, David, “Un tournant et un renouveau: Le contexte historique et juridique de la jurisprudence de la Cour      PAGE  42 suprême du Canada en droit autochtone depuis 1990” (Montreal: Congrès du Barreau, 2000). SCOTT, D., “Colonialism, Anthropology of” in  Neil J. Smelser, Paul B. Baltes eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001) SCOTT, W.S., The Canadian Constitution Historically Explained (Toronto: Carswell, 1918). SEAVER, James E.,  A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison (Syracuse University Press, 1990 reprint of Peter Smith ed. 1975 reprint of 1824). SEELEY, J. R., The Expansion of England, (University of Chicago Press, 1971 reprint of 1883). SEESEQUASIS, Paul, “Trick or Treat? What Kind of Indian Are You?” in A. Manguel ed. Why Are You Telling Me this? (Banff Centre Press, 1998), 143. SHAW, Malcolm N. International Law, 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1997). SHENANDOAH, Audry, “Everything Has To Be in Balance” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992), 36. SHIMONY, Annemarie Anrod, Conservatism Among the Iroquois at the Six Nations Reserve (Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press, 1994). SHIMONY, Annemarie, “Conflict and Continuity: An Analysis of an Iroquois Uprising” in Michael K. FOSTER, Jack CAMPISI, Marianne MITHUN eds. Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), 153. SHIMONY, Annemarie, “Alexander General, “Deskahe” Cayuga-Oneida, 1889-1965” in Margot LIBERTY ed. American Indian Intellectuals (1976 proceedings of the American Ethnological Society) (St.Paul: West Pub. Co., 1978), 159. SHKILNICK, Anastasia, A Poison Stonger than Love: The Destruction of an Ojibwa Community (London: Yale University Press, 1985). SHOHAT, Ella, “Notes on the “Post-Colonial”” (1992) 31/32 Critical Text 99. SICILIANOS, Linos-Alexandre, L’ONU et la démocratisation de l’État: systèmes régionaux et ordre juridique universel (Paris: Pedone, 2000). SIEBRASSE, Norman, “The Doctrinal Origin of Judicial Review and the Colonial Laws Validity Act” (1993) 1:1 Rev. Const. Studies 75. SIFTON, Clifford, “The Political Status of Canada”, (The Canadian Club of Ottawa, 8 April, 1922) SILMAN, Janet ed.,  Enough is Enough: Aboriginal Women Speak Out (Toronto: The Women’s Press, 1987). SILVER, A.I. ed. An Introduction to Canadian History (Toronto: Canadian Scholars; Press Ind., 1991).      PAGE  43 SIMPSON, J.A. and E.S.C. WEINER eds., The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). SIOUI, Georges E., Pour une Autohistoire Amérindienne: essai sur les fondements d’une morale sociale, (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1989). SISSONS, Jack, Judge of the Far North: The Memoirs of Jack Sissons (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1968). SKELTON, Oscar Douglas, The Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier (London, Oxford University Press, 1922, vol.2. SKUTNAB-KANGAS, Tove, “Language Policies and Education: The Role of Education in Destroying or  Supporting the World’s Linguistic Diversity” (Barcelona: World Congress on Language Policies, 16 – 20 April, 2002 http://linguapax, prg/congres/plenaries/skutnabb.html). SLATTERY, Brian, “Making Sense of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights” (2000) 79 Can. Bar Rev. 196. SLATTERY, Brian, “The Organic Constitution: Aboriginal Peoples and the Evolution of Canada” (1995) 34.1 Osgoode Hall L. J. 101. SLATTERY, Brian, “The Paradoxes of National Self-Determination” (1995) 32.4 Osgoode Hall L.J. 703. SLATTERY, Brian, “Aboriginal Sovereignty and Imperial Claims” (1991) 29.4 Osgoode Hall L.J. 681. SLATTERY, Brian, “The Hidden Constitution: Aboriginal Rights in Canada”(1984) 32 A.J.Comp.L. 361. SLATTERY, Brian, The Land Rights of Indigenous Canadian Peoples, as affected by the Crown’s Aquisition of their Territories (Ph.D, Faculty of Law, Oxford University, 1979). SMELSER, Neil J., Paul B. BALTES eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001). SMITH, Anthony D. “The problem of national identity: ancient, medieval and modern?” (1994) 17:3 Ethnic and Racial Studies 375. SMITH, Donald B., “Fred Loft” in Frederick E. HOXIE ed. Encyclopedia of North American Indians (New York, Houghten Mifflin, 1996). SMITH, Graham H., “Mai i te Maramatanga, ki te Putanga Mai o te Tahuritanga: From Conscientization to Transformation” (2004) 37.1 Educational Perspectives, 46. SMITH, Linda Tuhiwai, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Dunedin, University of Otago Press, 1999). SMITH, Robin Percival, Captain McNeill and His Wife the Nishga Chief (Surrey, B.C.: Handcock House Publishers Ltd., 2001). SMYLIE, Janet, Nili KAPLAN-MYRTH, Caroline TAIT, Carmel Mary MARTIN, Larry CHARTRAND, William HOGG, Peter TUGWELL, Gail VALASKAKIS, Ann C. MACAULAY, “Health Sciences Research and Aboriginal Communities: Pathway or Pitfall?” (March, 2004) J.O.G.C. 211. SNOW, Dean R., The Iroquois (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).      PAGE  44 SPAULDING, Richard, “Peoples as National Minorities: A Review of Wil Kymlicka’s Arguments for Aboriginal Rights from a Self- Determination Perspective”, (1997) 47 U.T.L.J. 35; SPECK, Frank G., “The Eastern Algonkian Wabanaki Confederacy” Robert M. Leavitt ed. Wapapi Akonutomakonol, The Wampum Records, Wabanaki Traditional Laws (Fredericton, New Brunswick: Micmac-Maliseet Institute, University of New Brunswick, 1990 republication of American Anthropologist, n.s. 17, 1915), 11. SPECK, Frank G. and Alexander GENERAL (Deskaheh) Midwinter Rites of the Cayuga Long House (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949). SPITTAL. W.G. ed., Iroquois Women: An Anthology (Ohsweken: Iroqrafts, 1990). SPIVAK, Gayatri Chakravorty, “Can the Subaltern Speak ?” (1994) Post Colonial Critic, 66 reprinting C. Nelson, L. Grossberg eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, 1988), 271. STACEY, C.P., Canada and the Age of Conflict: A History of Canadian External Policies, v.2 1921-1948, The MacKenzie King Era (University of Toronto Press, 1981). STANLEY, George F. G. “The Significance of the Six Nations Participation in the War of 1812” (1963) 55:4 Ontario History 215. STANLEY, G. F. G. “The Six Nations and the American Revolution” (1963) 56:4 Ontario History 217. STONE, William L., Life of Joseph Brant - Thayendanega (St. Clair Shores, Michigan: Scholarly Press, 1970 reprint of New York: Alexander V. Blake, 1838). STUBER, Peter, “Legal Reasoning after Post-Modern Critiques of Reason” (1997) 3 Legal Writing 21. STUCHTEY, Benedikt, “Literature, liberty and life of the nation: British historiography from Macaulay to Trevelyan” in Stefan Berger, Mark Donovan, Kevin Passmore eds. Writing National Histories: Western Europe since 1800 (London: Routledge, 1999), 30. STURTEVAT. William C., Handbook of North American Indians (Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 1978). SUBER, Peter. “Legal Reasoning after Post-Modern Critiques of Reason” (1997) 3 Legal Writing 21. SULLIVAN, James, The Papers of Sir William Johnson (Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1921- 1965). SULLIVAN, R., Drieger on the Construction of Statutes  3rd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994). SUNG, Z.D. ed., The Text of the Yi King (and its appendices) Chinese Original with English Translation (Shanghai: 1935 reprinted Taiwan: Chung Hwa publications, 1976). SUREDA, A. Rigo, The Evolution of the Right to Self- Determination: A study of United Nations Practice (Leiden: Sijthof, 1973).      PAGE  45 SWAINGER, Jonathan, The Canadian Department of Justice and the Completion of Confederation 1867-78 (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 2000). SWAMP, Chief Jake, “The Edge of the Woods” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 13. SWAMP, Lornie, “Background of Environmental Contamination at Akwesasne”, http://www.albany.edu/sph/superfund/akwes.html (12/31/05). SYKES, J.B., The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). SZUMA Chien, YANG Hsien-yi and Gladys YANG trans. Selections from Records of the Historian (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1979). TANNEN, Deborah ed., Framing in Discourse (New York: Oxford University Press. 1993). TANNEN, Deborah, That's Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (New York: Ballantine, 1986). TAYLOR, C.J.  Bones in the Basket: Native stories of the origin of people, (Toronto: Tundra Books, 1994). TEIOWI:SONTE (Thomas Deer), “Why the Haudenosaunee don’t vote” 12:41 The Eastern Door, Nov.7 2003. THOHAHOKEN Michael Doxtater, “The Apologia Canadiana lessons for an Indian Bording School Apologia Americana (Fall 2009) 20(3) Indigenous Poolicy Journal, 1. THOMAS, Earle, The Three Faces of Molly Brant (Kingston, Ont.: Quarry Press, 1996). THOMAS, Jacob, Teachings from the Longhouse (Toronto: Stoddard Publishing, 1994). THOMAS, Jacob, “Words that Come Before All Else” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992), 10. THOMAS, Jacob, “The Great Law Takes a Long Time to Understand” in Jose Barreiro Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Akwe:Kon Press, 1992), 43. THOMAS, Lewis, The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher (London: Viking Press, 1979). THWAITE, Anthony, Beyond the Inhabited World: Roman Britain (London: André Deutsch Limited, 1976). THOMAS, Earle, The Three Faces of Molly Brant (Kingston Ontario: Quarry Press, 1996). THOMPSON, Ruth, ed. The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in International Law: Selected Essays on Self-Determination (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1987). THORNBERRY, Patrick, “The principle of self-determination” in Vaughn Lowe and Colin Warbrick eds The United Nations and      PAGE  46 the Principles of International Law (London: Routledge, 1994) 175. THORNBERRY, Patrick, International Law and the Rights of Minorities (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). TIMSIT, Gérard, “Sur l’engendrement du droit” (1998) 39 R.D.P. 48. TITLEY, E. Brian, A Narrow Vision Duncan Campbell Scott and the Administration of Indian Affairs in Canada (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1996). TODOROV, Tzvetan, Richard Howard trans., The Conquest of America: The question of the other (New York: Harper and Row, 1982). TONG, Dawna, “A History of Exclusion: The Treatment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities by the Law Society of British Columbia in Admissions to the Legal Profession”, (1998) 56.2 The Advocate 197. TOOKER, Elizabeth, “A Note on the Return of Eleven Wampum Belts to the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy on Grand River, Canada” (1998) 45.2 Ethnohistory 219. TOOKER, Elizabeth, “Women in Iroquois society”, c.7 in Michael K. FOSTER, Jack CAMPISI, Marianne MITHUN eds. Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984). TREATY 7 ELDERS and Tribal Council with Walter Hildebrandt, Dorothy First Rider, Sarah Carter, The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996). TREVELYAN, Raleigh, The Golden Oriole: Childhood, Family and Friends in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988). TRIGGER, Bruce G. and Wilcomb E. WASHBURN eds., The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas (Cambridge University Press, 1996). TRIGGER, Bruce G. , “The French Presence in Huronia: The Structure of Franco-Huron Relations in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century” in A.I. Silver ed. An Introduction to Canadian History (Toronto: Canadian Scholars; Press Ind., 1991), 3. TRIGGER, Bruce G., “The Historian’s Indian: Native Americans in Canadian Historical Writing from Charlevoix to the Present” (1986) 67.3 Can. Hist. Rev. 315. TRIGGER, Bruce G., Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s “Heroic Age” Reconsidered (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1985). TRIGGER, Bruce G., “Indian and White History: Two Worlds or One?” c.1 in Michael K. FOSTER, Jack CAMPISI, Marianne MITHUN eds. Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984.) TRIGGER, Bruce G., The Huron Farmers of the North 2nd ed. (Orlando, Florida: Holt Rinehart, Winston Inc. 1969, 1990).      PAGE  47 TRUDEL, Marcel, L’esclavage au Canada français: histoire et conditions de l’esclavage (Québec: Les presses universitaires laval, 1960). TRUDEL, Marcel, ed., Champlain (Montreal: Fides, 1956 reprint of Champlain’s memoirs of 1618). TULLEY, James, “The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom” in Ardith Walkem, Halie Bruce eds Box of Treasures of Empty Box: Twenty Years of S.35 (Penticton: Theytus Books Ltd.,2003) 272. TURGEON, W. F. A., L’ Autonomie du Canada et sa situation internationale (Paris, Société d’histoire du Canada, 1926). TURPEL-LAFOND, M. E., “Some Thoughts on Inclusion and Innovation in the Saskatchewan Justice System” (2005) 68 Sask. L.R. 293. TURPEL, M. E., “Aboriginal People and the Canadian Charter: Interpretative Monopolies, Cultural Differences” (1989-90) Can. Hum. Rts.Y.B. 3. TWEEDSMUIR, Lady, Canada (London: Britain in Pictures Limited, 1940). UNITED NATIONS: “Role of Governments in Advancing Indigenous Rights Focus as Debate Continues in United Nations Forum” United Nations Economic and Social Council HR/4891 (New York: Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, 17 May 2006) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/hr4891.doc.htm “Participants in Indigenous Forum Highlight Disasterous Effects of Poverty, Conflicts, Lack of Access to Human Rights Education.” ( Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues HR/4846, 2005.) VACHON, Robert, “Au-delà de l’universalisation et de l’interculturalisation des droits de l’homme, du droit et de l’order négocié” (Sept, 2000) Bulletin de Liaison d’Anthropologie Juridique de Paris.[draft] VALAKAKIS, Gail Guthrie, “Telling Our Own Stories: The Role, Development and Future of Aboriginal Communications” (CCRN Colloquium, June 1998) http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/ccm/ccrn/documents/colloq98_val askakis.(10/1/2006) VALAKAKIS, Gail Guthrie, “Parallel Voices: Indians and Others - Narratives of Cultural Struggle” (1993) 18.3 Can. J. Communication 283. VALLIÈRES, Pierre, Nègres blancs d’Amérique (Québéc: Éditions Parti Pris, 1974). VAN KIRK Sylvia, Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670-1870 (Watson & Dwyer Publishing, 1980). VEATCH, Richard, Canada and the League of Nations (University of Toronto Press, 1975). VECSEY, Christopher, Imagine Ourselves Richly: Mythic Narratives of North American Indians (New York: Crossroad, 1988). VENABLES, Robert W. “Some Observations on the Treaty of Canandaigua” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds.      PAGE  48 Treaty of Canandaigua 1794: 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 84. VENABLES, Robert W., “The Founding Fathers: Choosing to be the Romans” in Jose Barreiro, Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University, Akwe:Kon Press, 1992). VENNE, Sharon Helen. Our Elders Understand Our Rights: Evolving International Law Regarding Indigenous Peoples, (LL.M., Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, 1997) published (Penticton, B.C.: Theytus Books, 1998). VENNE, Sharon, “Understanding Treaty 6: An Indigenous Perspective” in ASCH, Michael, ed. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference” (Vancouver: U.B.C. Press, 1997), 176. VIZENOR, Gerald and A. Robert LEE, Postindian Conversations (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999). VISWANATHAN, Gauri, “The Beginnings of English literary study in British India” (1987) 9.1 and 2 Oxford Lit. Rev. WADDELL, Ian, “Building a Box, Finding Storage Space” in Ardith Walkem, Halie Bruce eds Box of Treasures of Empty Box: Twenty Years of S.35 (Penticton: Theytus Books Ltd., 2003) 23. Also published as “The Laboured Birth of Section 35” (2008) 66.6 The Advocate, 891. WADE, H.W. R., “ The Basis of Legal Sovereignty”, [1955] Camb. L.J. 172. WAGNER, Sally Roesch, Sisters in Spirit, Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists (Summertown, Tennessee: Native Voices, 2001). WAGNER, Sally Roesch, “The Iroquois Influence on Women’s Rights” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992), 115. WAGNER, Sally Roesch, “The Root of Oppression is the Loss of Memory: The Iroquois and the Early Feminist Vision” in William Guy Spittal ed. Iroquois Women: An Anthology (Ohsweken: Iroqrafts, 1990 reprint of 1988 paper, Champlain Valley History Symposium, Plattsburgh, N.Y.) WAKEFIELD, Sara F., June Namias ed. Six Weeks in the Sioux Teepees: A Narrative of Indian Captivity (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997 reprint of 1864). WALDRAM, James B., Revenge of the Windigo: The Construction of the Mind and Mental Health of North American Aboriginal Peoples (University of Toronto Press, 2004). WALKEM, Ardith, Halie BRUCE eds Box of Treasures of Empty Box: Twenty Years of S.35 (Penticton: Theytus Books Ltd., 2003). WALKER, Aileen and Oonagh GAY, “The Coronation Oath” (London: House of Commons Library, 2005) WALL, Brian, “Literary Criticism” Summer 2000, Department of English University of Western Ontario, http://instruct.uwo.ca/english/200/index/html.      PAGE  49 WALLACE, Anthony F.C., “Women, Land, and Society: Three Aspects of Aboriginal Delaware Life” (1947) 17.1-4 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 2. WALTERS, F.P., A History of the League of Nations (London: Oxford University Press, 1960). WALTERS, Mark D., “Common Law, Reason, and Sovereign Will” (2003) 53 U.T. L.J. 65. WALTERS, Mark, “Brightening the Covenant Chain: Aboriginal Treaty Meanings in Law and History after Marshall” (2001) 24.2 Dal. L. J. 75. WALTERS, Mark D., “The Common Law Constitution in Canada: Return of Lex Non Scripta as Fundamental Law” (2001) 51 U.T. L.J. 91. WALTERS, Mark D., “The “Golden Thread” of Continuity: Aboriginal Customs at Common Law and Under the Constitution Act, 1982” (1999) 44 McGill L. J. 711. WALTERS, Mark D., ““According to the Old Customs of Our Nation”: Aboriginal Self-Government on the Credit River Mississauga Reserve, 1826-1847” (1998-9) 30:1 Ottawa L. Rev. 1. WALTERS, Mark, “Aboriginal Rights, Magna Carta and Exclusive Rights to Fisheries in the Waters of Upper Canada” (1998) 23 Queen’s L.J. 301. WALTERS, Mark, “British Imperial Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Rights: A Comment on Delgamuukw v. British Columbia” (1992) 17 Queen’s L.J. 350. WASTASECOOT, James, “Are We Decolonized? Have We Finished Dreaming?” http://www.firstperspective,ca/story_2004_10_01, (11/9/04). WATT, Gavin K. The Flockery, 13 August 1777: The Defeat of the Tory uprising in the Schoharie Valley (Bowmanville, Ontario: Mothersill Printing (1988) Inc., 2002). WEAVER, Sally M., “The Iroquois: Grand River Reserve, 1875-1945” in Edward S. ROGERS and Donald B. SMITH eds Aboriginal Ontario, Historical Perspectives on the First Nations (Toronto: Dundurn, 1994), 213. WEAVER, Sally M., “The Iroquois: The Consolidation of the Grand River Reserve in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1847-1875” in Edward S. ROGERS and Donald B. SMITH eds Aboriginal Ontario, Historical Perspectives on the First Nations (Toronto: Dundurn, 1994),182. WEAVER, Sally M., “Seth Newhouse and the Grand River Confederacy at Mid-Nineteenth Century” c.10 in Michael K. FOSTER, Jack CAMPISI, Marianne MITHUN eds. Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984.) WEAVER, Sally M., Iroquois Politics, 1847-1940 (Canada Council and The National Museum of Man, Ottawa, 1975 archived at Doris Lewis Rare Book Room, University of Waterloo, Ontario).      PAGE  50 WEBBER, Jeremy, Reimagining Canada: Language, Culture, Community, and the Canadian Constitution (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994). WEBER, Max, Julien Freund trans., “ L’Objectivité de la connaissance dans les sciences et la politique sociales” (1904) (Paris: Plon, 1965, reproduced in Karl M. Van Meter ed. La sociologie (Paris: Larousse, 1992), 326. WEEKES, Mary, The Last Buffalo Hunter (Saskatoon, Fifth House Publishers,1994 reprint of 1939). WEICHS DE WENNE, Veronique de ed., The Question of Self Determination: The Cases of East Timor, Tibet and Western Sahara, (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Association Conference Report, Geneva 25-26 March, 1996). WEIGER, L., Chinese Characters: their origin, etymology, history, classification and signification, 2nd ed. trans. L. Davrout (New York: Dover 1965 reprint of Catholic Mission Press, 1927). *WEINRIB, Ernest, The Fiduciary Obligation (1975), 25 U.T.L.J. 1. WEIR, Stuart, David BEETHAM, Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain: The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom (London: Routledge, 1999), 23. WHITE, Albert Beebe and Wallace NOTESTEIN trans., Source Problems in English History (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1915). WHITE, James ed., Handbook of Indians of Canada, (Ottawa: appendix to the Tenth Report of the Geographic Board of Canada, 1913). WHITE, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge University Press, 1991). WHITTACKER, W.J. ed., The Mirror of Justices (London: Seldon Society, B. Quartich, 1895). WICKEN, William C. Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land and Donald Marshall Junior (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002). WICKET, S. Morley, “City Government in Canada”(1990) 15.2 Political Science Quarterly ,240. WICKS, Elizabeth, The Evolution of a Constitution: Eight Key Moments in British Constitutional History (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006). WILHELM, Richard, Cary F. Baynes trans. The I Ching or Book of Changes (Princeton Uniersity Press, 1950). WILKINSON, Charles F., “To feel Summer in the Spring: The Treaty Fishing Rights of the Wisconsin Chippewa,” 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 375, WILLIAMS, Joseph M., Style: Towards Clairty and Grace (University of Chicago Press, 1990). WILLIAMS, Patricia, “Spirit-Murdering the Messenger: The Discourse of Fingerpointing as the Law’s Response to Racism” (1987) 42:9  U. Miami L. Rev. 127 WILLIAMS, Paul, “Treaty Making: The Legal Record” in G. Peter Jemison and Anna M. Schein eds. Treaty of Canandaigua 1794:      PAGE  51 200 Years of Treaty Relations between the Iroquois Confederacy and the United States (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000), 35. WILLIAMS, Paul, “Reading Wampum Belts as Living Symbols” in José Barreiro ed. Indian Roots of American Democracy (Ithaca, New York: Akwe:kon Press, Cornel University, 1992), 160. WILLIAMS, Robert A.Jr., Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600 – 1800 (New York : Routledge, 1999). WILLIAMS, Robert A., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). WILLISON, George F., Saints and Strangers (New York: Time Reading Program, 1964 reprint of 1945). WILSON, Bertha, “Decision-Making in the Supreme Court” (1986) 36 U.T.L.J. 227. WILSON, James, Canada’s Indians Report No 21. (London: The Minority Rights Group, 1982). WILSON, Woodrow, “Fourteen Points Address”, www.yale.edu. WINTER, Steven L., A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind (University of Chicago Press, 2001). WINTER, Steven L., “The “Power” Thing” (1996) 82:5 Virginia L. Rev. 744 -61. WINTER, Steven L., “Death is the Mother of Metaphor” (1992) 105:726 Harvard L. Rev. 745. WINTER, Steven L., “The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance” (1988) 40 Stanford L. R.ev. 1371. WITZIG, Ritchie, “The Medicalization of Race: Scientific Legitimation of a Flawed Social construct” (1996) 125 Annals of Internal Medicine 675. WONG, K. Laiana, “He Hawa’e Kai Nui a Kau ma Kula” (2004) 37.1 Educational Perspectives, 31. WOO, Grace Li Xiu (Slykhuis) Ghost Dancing at the Supreme Court of Canada: Indigenous rights during the first quarter century of s.35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982. (LL.D., 2008, Université de Montréal). WOO, Grace Li Xiu, “Canada’s Forgotten Founders: The Modern Significance of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Application for Membership in the League of Nations” (2003) 1 LGD (Journal of Law Social Justice and Global Development) http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/global/issue/2003-1. WOO, G.L.X., “Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, L’ONU et la démocratisation de l’État: systèmes régionaux et ordre juridique universel, Paris: Pedone, 2000” (2000) 13.1 R.Q.D.I. 367. WOO, Grace Li Xiu, “Débat sur l’éducation interculturelle et la cohésion sociale - Debate on Intercultural Education and Social Cohesion” (1999) 12.1 R.Q.D.I.149. WOO, Li Xiu (Grace Emma Slykhuis), Canada v. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy at the League of Nations: Two Quests      PAGE  52 for Independence (LL.M. 2000, Université du Québec à Montréal). WOO, Li Xiu, “The Cracked Mirror: How ‘Judicial Notice’ Beat Historic Evidence in the 19th Century Decline in Women's Constitutional Rights” (1994) 52.3 The Advocate 347. WOO, Li Xiu, “Repairing the Dome of Heaven: A Re-examination of the Classical Roots of Women’s Legal Status in China” (1994) 24.2 Hong Kong Law Journal 231. WOODMAN, Gordon, “The Chthonic Legal Tradition – or Everything that is Not Something Else” (2006) 1:1  J. Comp. L., 123. WOODWARD, Jack, Native Law (Toronto: Carswell, 1989). WOOLFORD, Andrew and R.S. RATNER, “A Measured Sovereignty: The Politics of Nation-Making in British Columbia” (2004) 24(2) Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 253. WRAXALL, Peter, An Abridgement of the Indian Affairs 1678-1751 ed. Charles Howard McIlwain (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915). WRIGHT, Ronald, Stolen Continents, the “New World” through Indian Eyes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992). YANG Hsien-Yi and Gladys YANG trans., Selections from Records of the Historian (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1979). YAZZIE, Robert, “Indigenous Peoples and Postcolonial Colonialism” in Marie BATTISTE ed. Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (University of British Columbia Press, 2000), 43. YORK, Geoffrey and Loreen PINDERA, People of the Pines: The Warriors and the Legacy of Oka (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1991). YOUINGS, Joyce, Social History of Britain: Sixteenth-Century England (London: Penguin 1991 reprint of 1984). YUAN Chao Pishih,  Secret History of the Mongols (Cambridge, Mass.: Published for Harvard-Yenching Institute by Harvard University Press, 1982). ZIFF, Bruce. Principles of Property Law, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2000). ZOLLER, A.C. “International Representations of Peoples and Minorities” in Catherine Brölmann, René Lefeber, Marjoleine Zieck, Peoples and Minorities in International Law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992) 301.  Unidentified Author Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation (4th ed.) (Toronto: Carswell, 1998)  Newspaper/Media Articles BARRERA Jorge, Canwest News Service, “First Nation ex-Olympian calls for Pound to resign over ‘savages’ remark”, Montreal, The Gazette, 19 Oct. 2008, A4. BEAUVAIS, André, “La police la mieux équipée du Québec” Le Journal de Montréal (31 Jan. 2006).      PAGE  53 BUTLER, Don, “The Woman Behind the Charter” (The [Ottawa] Citizen, http://Canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/jc/vol5/no2 (17/03/2006). CUTHAND, John, “Beware of con artists posing as spiritual elders” 9.8 Eagle Feather News (Aug. 2006) 6. CAMPBELL, Maria, “Reflections: Could that really be kokum in the mirror?”10.1 Eagle Feather News (January, 2007) 5. CANTALUPO, Charles, “Ngugi wa Thiong’o Penpoints, Gunpoints, and Dreams” http://www.leftcurve.org/LC23webPaqges/ngugu.html (3/5/ 2005). CORNACCHIA, Cheryl, “Mohawk Leader slams Ottawa’s about-face”, The [Montreal] Gazette (6 July, 2006) A7. DEER, Kenneth, “Caledonia’s Mohawks have plenty of reasons to mistrust the law”, The [Montreal] Gazette (25 April, 2006) A 23. DERSHOWITZ, Alan, “Arbour must go: Her absurd comments were harmful to deomcracies fighting terrorism” The [Montreal] Gazette ( 22 July, 2006), B7. FADDEN, John, book review of “Ecocide Of Native America: Environmental Destruction Of Indian Lands And Peoples”(1995) 1.3 Akwesasne Notes New Series, 130. GEORGE –Kanentiio, Doug, “Dreams up in smoke” The [Montreal] Gazette (20 Nov. 2008), A21. GANDHI, Lingaraja, “Literature as a weapon for change” The Deccan Herald (23 Jan. 2005). HARRISON Megan, “Protesters Pack City Courtroom” [Cornwall] Standard Freeholder (15 July 2008), HEINRICH, Jeff , “Judge throws book at Mohawk rioters”, The [Montreal] Gazette (21 Jan., 2006) A 9. HUMPHREYS,Helen, “On the Plains of Abraham, 1759”,The Walrus, September 2009 22. JAY, Dru Oja, “Pain Compliance as Indigenous Relations: Inside the Barriere Lake Algonquins’ blockade of highway 117”, The Dominion (October, 2008). LAMBERT, Steve, “An Unlikely Place for Hope” The [Montreal] Gazette (8 Jan. 2007), A11. LURIE, Alison, “The Oddness of Oz”, New York Times Review of Books (21 Dec. 2000) MEANEY, Ken, See eg. Ken Meaney, “Gulf cod stocks essentially are doomed, study finds”, The [Montreal] Gazette (28 Nov. 2008), A12. McCABE Aileen, “Aboriginal chiefs mean business in China: Trade Mission: Looking to develop resource-rich land” Canwest News Asia, The Gazette, montrealgazette.com 5 Nov. 2008. McCARTHY,  Michael, “Former Chief Chairs Treaty Commission” (28 May, 2010) Vancouver Courier, 4. McCONNELL, Kim, “We can’t change history to mollify losers”, The [Montreal] Gazette ( 27 January,2009) A14. NEWCOMB, Steven, “Newcomb: On America’s pathological behaviour towards Native peoples” Indian Country Today ( 10/09/2004).      PAGE  54 NESSETH David, “Human Rights Tribunal Aide Detained at Border” [Cornwall] Standard Freeholder (3 December 2009). PRITCHARD, Trevor, “Family Furious with Customs” [Cornwall] Standard Freeholder (21 June 2008. STEELE, Claude M., Thin Ice: “Stereotype Threat” and Black College Students (Atlantic Unbound, August, 1999 http://www.theatlantic.com/issues. STUBBS, Dave, “Sweet dreams are made of this” The [Montreal] Gazette ( 9 September 2000) T3. THOMAS-LESTER, Avis, Washington Post “U.S. Senate to say sorry for ‘American Holocaust’” The [Montreal] Gazette (12 June, 2005) IN1 - IN3. THOMPSON, Elizabeth, “‘Let the government hear from Canadians’” The [Montreal] Gazette (2 June, 2006) A10. TIBBITS, Janice, “Watchdog slams prison system” The [Montreal] Gazette (17 Oct., 2006), A12. TURLEY, Jonathan, “It’s O.K. to speak ill of the Dead: Hollywood and authors take full advantage of laws that say you can’t ruin the reputation of a deceased person” The [Montreal] Gazette [reprint of Washington Post] (24 Sept. 2006)  A21.) YATES, Steven, “Thomas S. Kuhn, the Culture War and the Idea of Secession” http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates2.html (10/12/04).   Unidentified Authors: Akwesasne Notes, “Deskaheh, Iroquois Statesman and Patriot”, Akwesasne Notes, (Mohawk Nations via Rooseveltown, N.Y.). Brantford Expositor, 4 to 23 December 1922. Eagle Feather News: “This man’s a senator: but is he worthy?” January 2009, 4. The [Montreal] Gazette: “Police Raid pours fire on protest” Canwest News Service/Canadian Press The [Montreal] Gazette (21 Apr., 2006) A1. “Exhibition area will feature former Parliament’s foundations”, The [Montreal] Gazette (27 June, 2006) “We don’t know us: Most would flunk citizenship test”, Reuters, The [Montreal] Gazette (30 June, 2007) A12. “Archaeologists report finding oldes Hebrew text” The Gazette, Reuters, (Montreal. montrealgazette.com, 31 Oct. 2008) A18. The Iroquoian:   “George Palmer Decker, Lawyer/Defender of the Iroquois”, (Fall, 1985) Ontario Indian:   “Deskahe’s London Lobby” [April, 1982] 8.5 Ontario Indian.   “The Last Speech of Des-ka-heh” [Nov. 1980] 3.11 Ontario Indian. Standard Freeholder:   “Bail Review Leads to Akwesasne Woman’s Release” [Cornwall] Standard Freeholder (14 January 2010)      PAGE  55 Time [Canadian edition]   “Canada’ s Water Polo Team: Their Goal is Gold” Time [Canadian edition] (11 Sept. 2000) 60.  Films/Video GENDRON, Hubert Gendron and Gordon HENDERSON, Canada, A People’s History (http://history.cbc.ca/histicons/). KARATAK, Elisapee and Ole GJERSTAD, Kikkik (Westmount, Que.: Filmoption International, 2000). KEEFER, Tom, Struggle for the Land : Footage of and Statements from participants of the Six Nations Land Reclamation (April-June 2006) (Toronto: Upping the Anti, 2006) uppingtheanti@gmail.com http://auto_sol.tao.ca . LEUSTIG, Jack, dir., 500 Nations (U.S.: Warner Brothers, 1994). LONGBOAT, Harvey (Deskaheh), “Social and Cultural Implications of the Hodenosaunee Great Law of Peace” (Introduction to the Iroquois Great Law of Peace and Canada's Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from International Law, American Association of Jurists, Faculty of Law, McGill University, 22 Jan.2000) [unpublished, video archived at the Kanionke’haka Raotitiohkwa Cultural Center, Kahnawake, Quebec, J0L 1BO] McNAUGHTEN, Anne, Elizabeth KLUTE, Norma DELARONDE and Diane LAZORE, The Role of Women, [unpublished video, Kanionke’haka Raotitiohkwa Cultural Center, Box 969, Kahnawake, Mohawk Territory, Quebec J0L 1B0]. OBOMSAWIN, Alanis, Rocks at Whiskey Trench (Ottawa: National Filmboard of Canada, 2000). STARKEY, David , Chris Openshaw, Dir. Elizabeth (B.B.C. – The History Channel, A and E Television, 2002). STARKEY, David , Monarchy, (Britain, Chanenel 4, 2004-2006) http://www.chanel4.com/programmes/monarchy/ WILLIAMS, Paul, “Hodenosaunee Law: Teachings Canadian Courts the Laws of Aboriginal Nations, after Delgamuukw”, (Introduction to the Iroquois Great Law of Peace and Canada's Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from International Law, American Association of Jurists, Faculty of Law, McGill University, 22 Jan.2000) [unpublished, video archived at the Kanionke’haka Raotitiohkwa Cultural Center, Kahnawake, Quebec, J0L 1BO]  Websites This is a record of what I used.  Some sites may have changed or may no longer be operative.  Aboriginal Multi-Media Society, http://www.ammsa.com Academy of Achievement, http://www.achievement.org (Rosa Parks Biography) Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.ca.      PAGE  56 “Canada: Stolen sisters – A human rights response to discrimination and violence against Indigenous women in Canada” AMR 20/03/2004. “Time is wasting”, Respect for land rights of the Lubicon Cree long overdue” “The Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Overview”, (1 Dec. 2009). Atlantic Unbound, http://www.theatlantic.com Atlantic Salmon Federation, http://www.asf.ca/govaffairs/marshallcomments.html Australian Legal Information Institute, http://austlii.edu.au Avalon Project, Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon Britannia, http://www.britannia.com. British Archaeology, http://www.britarch.ac.uk. Brookings Institution, www.brook.edu/gs/EnvJustice/ej_hp.htm. Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca; Canada, Department of Justice, http://Canada.justice.gc.ca Canada’s Digital Collections, http://collections.ic.gc.ca Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,  http://www.cbc.ca. Canadian Commission on Race Relations, www.crr.com. Canadian Encyclopedia, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com Canadian Heritage/Patrimoine canadien, http://canadianheritage.gc.ca Canadian Legal Information Institute, http://www.canlii.org. Canadian Literature, http://www.canlit.ca CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca Charles Muller, http://www2.gol.com/users/acmuller/cantao/mencius.htm Commission of Inquiry Into Matters Relating to the Death of Neil Stonechild, http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca Deccan Herald, http://www.deccanherald.com The Dominion http://www.dominionpaper.ca The Gazette http://www.montrealgazette.com Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu. First Perspective, National Aboriginal News, http://www.firstperspective.ca Federal Court of Canada, http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca. Hopi Way, http://www.thehopiway.com. Indian Country Today, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com Indigenous Bar Association, http://www.indigenousbar.ca Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, http://www.ipcb.org Inter American Commission on Human Rights, http://www.cidh.org International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp Ipperwash Inquiry,  http://www.ipperwashinquiry.ca Ishgooda, http://www.ishgooda.nativeweb.org Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, http://www.jcpc.gov.uk Left Curve, http://www.leftcurve.org Lew Rockwell, http://www.lewrockwell.com      PAGE  57 Marianopolis College, http://www2.marianopolic.edu Medieval Sourcebook, http://www.fordham.edu Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, http://www.kahnawake.com Mohawk Nation News, http://www.mohawknationnews.com. Musqueam Indian Band, http://www.musqueam.bc.ca National Library of Canada, http://www.collectionscanada.ca NewYork State, Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, http://nysparks.wstate.ny.us/historic-sites/10/details.aspx New Zealand, http://www.nzhistory.net.nz Nunavut, http://www.gov.nu.ca Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/news/news_060 616.htm Parks Canada, http://www.pc.gc.ca Quilt of Belonging, http:/www.invitationproject.ca. Rogers Communications Inc., http://www.680news.com The Sixties Project, http://www3.iath.virginia.edu South Africa, Department of Justice,  http://www.doj.gov.za Standard Freeholder [Cornwall]. http://www.standard- freeholder.com Supreme Court of Canada,  http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca Tuscarora and Six Nations, www.tuscaroras.com Ubuntu World Forum of Civil Society Networks, http://ubuntu.upc Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,  http://www.ubcic Université de la Polynesie Français, http://www.upf.pf University at Albany, http://www.albany.edu University of New Brunswick, http://www.unb.ca University of Rhode Island, www.uri.edu University of Toronto Press Journals, http://www.utpjournals.com University of Victoria, http://web.uvic.ca University of Waterloo, http://arts.waterloo.ca/arts University of Waterloo, Instructional Web Server, http://instruct.uwo.ca United Nations UN Human Development Reports, http://hdr.undbp.org UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, http://www.un.org UN Economic and Social Council, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev Veterans Affairs Canada, http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca. The Victorian Web, http://www.victorianweb.org. Wampum Chronicles, www.wampumchronicles.com Wasasae, KKKanada Day http://www.wasase.org Wikipedia, http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia, http://wikipedia.org “Berlin Conference” “consciousness raising”  (08/07/2006). “elephant –AA metaphor” (08/07/2006). “Ghost Dance” (3/17/06). “Hochelega (8/12/2006); “Karl Marx” (08/07/2006). “Oka Crisis” (2/7/06) “Pledge of Allegiance” (8/27/2006)      PAGE  58 “Tecumseh” (10/29/2006).   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 40 12
Canada 28 23
Japan 8 0
Sweden 7 4
Germany 7 80
Switzerland 5 0
India 4 0
France 2 0
United Kingdom 2 0
New Zealand 1 4
Netherlands 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 31 94
Tokyo 8 0
Vancouver 8 2
Calgary 7 4
Mountain View 7 5
Dallas 6 0
Montreal 5 0
Zumikon 5 0
Newark 3 0
Stockholm 3 0
Whistler 2 0
Burlington 2 0
Wilkes Barre 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items