Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. [2]
Reference Re Eskimos, 1939 CanLII 22, [1939] SCR 104 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional status of Canada's Inuit, then called "Eskimos." The case concerned section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , then the British North America Act, 1867 , which assigns jurisdiction over "Indians, and Lands reserved ...
Bail, section 11(e) Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519, 2002 SCC 68 October 31, 2002 Right to vote for prisoners Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, 2002 SCC 76 December 5, 2002 Harvard mouse, patenting higher lifeforms Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd
In 1956, the Government of Canada purchased 6 km 2 (1,500 acres) of the land previously owned by the Sulpicians for the Mohawks to live on, but did not grant this land reserve status. [ 12 ] In 1975, the Mohawk Council submitted a comprehensive land claims asserting Aboriginal title to lands along the St. Lawrence River , the Ottawa River and ...
Canada (AG) v Federation of Law Societies of Canada 2015 SCC 7 [164] Whether Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act , as it applies to the legal profession, infringes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right not to be deprived of liberty otherwise in accordance with principles of ...
The issues relating to prohibitions and penalties can be approached separately, as noted by Laskin C.J. in Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian National Transportation, Ltd.: It is certainly open to the Parliament of Canada, in legislating in relation to s. 91(27), to take a disjunctive view of the very wide criminal law power which it possesses.
Drawing upon its reasoning in Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), the Court recalled, "The party seeking [declatory] relief must establish that the court has jurisdiction to hear the issue, that the question is real and not theoretical, and that the party raising the issue has a genuine interest in its resolution."
The Paulette Case refers to the filing of a legal caveat concerning the different interpretations of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 between the Government of Canada and the Denesoline in the Northwest Territories (NWT).