Since 1951, when Indigenous people were allowed access to the colonial courts, the views of crown lawyers and judges are right there on the record.

Here are some case files from the archive project: factums, memos, early decisions, and case summaries from the time.
Most of these records are not maintained online. Only the ruling of the highest court is available, so, in cases that have been in the courts for decades and proceeded through numerous stages, the final result can be very difficult to understand. Lower court rulings are presented here.
In some cases, critical decisions are made in the court of appeal and are then never mentioned again. For example, in the famous Delgamuukw decision of 1997, the province of British Columbia abandoned its position that all the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en “aboriginal rights” had been extinguished. They did this in 1993 at the BC Court of Appeal stage, when the court commissioned an independent expert study of the issue. This change of position was an about-face from BC’s original defense, and explains a lot in the development of the case.
To use the same case for another example, it’s essential to understand that both sides in the Delgamuukw litigation agreed to pause the next stage of the legal proceedings while they spent time attempting to negotiate a comprehensive approach to jurisdiction and land decisions. They did this on the recommendation of the Court of Appeal, in 1993. But by 1994, the government’s local forest managers were pushing through logging plans without regard for that condition, attempting to pass off meetings as “consultation” while the plans were a foregone conclusion. Gitksan Chiefs blocked the railway to stop it, and were promptly back in court in a new action: Ryan v Schultz.
Cases which are not reported in the BC or Canada Law Review are also difficult to find, unless you go to the courthouse of the trial and buy a copy, like with transcripts.

Here is a list of some of the new uploads in Lawfare!

These artifacts are all part of a bigger stories. These additions are provided here to add to the record.

R. v. Adams (Thomas Russel) – 1990

1990, October 30 Provincial Court ruling, Campbell River
Haida
“I have no option but to find that the defendant was not required to hold an Indian Food Fish Licence for the herring spawn on kelp in his possession and he is therefor entitled to acquittal on both charges.”

R. v. Adams – DFO letter to counsel: November 21, 1984
“I have directed the Chief of Finance for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to draft a cheque for Mr. Thomas Russel Adams in the amount of $4,670.00, this being the amount received for the seventeen pails of roe on kelp seized by this Department. the other five pails were seized by the Department of Treasury United States Customs Service and therefore would not be included in the monies ordered returned by the court.”

Ahousaht First Nation v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) 2007

Federal Court of Canada
Nuu-chah-nulth
Case summary by Lawson Lundell LLP, July 20, 2007
“The Federal Court of Canada recently released its decision in Ahousaht First Nation v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans). The court considered an application by 14 First Nations represented by the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (“NTC”) for judicial review of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the implementation of a commercial groundfish pilot plan on the British Columbia coast (the “Pilot Plan”). The NTC challenged the Minister’s decision on the grounds that the Minister failed to fulfil his duty to consult and accommodate the NTC before implementing the Pilot Plan. After reviewing the process leading up to the Plan’s introduction Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that, although the consultation was not perfect, the flaws did not warrant changing the Minister’s decision.”

Bear Island Foundation and Temagami v. Ontario AG (c.1985)

Supreme Court of Canada.
Factum of Intervenor NIB-AFN
“The Royal Proclamation applies in the land claim area. It has the force of statute. The onus is on the Respondent to prove abrogation of the procedural requirements enshrined in the Proclamation.”
“There is no case law, except the judgments below, in support of the argument that the procedural requirements of the Proclamation were repealed by the Quebec Act.”

R. v. Bob (Bradley) 1979, August 2. British Columbia County Court.

Ruling. Unreported.
Lillooet
“The accused was charged with unlawfully fishing in contravention of a closure effected under the Fisheries Act and Regulation. The accused claimed he had a lawful excuse to fish because he was fishing pursuant to a reserve right, not an aboriginal or treaty right.”
“The historical background for the Defence… (includes) “Recognition of BC Indian Fish Rights by the Federal-Provincial Commission, prepared for UBCIC 1978. I refer to the instructions given to Dominion Commissioner, Mr. Anderson, dated August 25, 1870:
“While it appears theoretically desirable as a matter of general policy to diminish the number of small reserves held by an Indian Nation, the circumstances will permit them to concentrate on three or four large reserves, thus making them more accessible to missionaries and school teachers…”

Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016

Supreme Court of Canada.
Booklet, “Understanding the Daniels Case” by BC Metis Federation
“At its best, the Daniels ruling provides the possibility to “consider” Metis communities as self-determined and self-governing nations with a unique historical connection to the Crown and First Nations.”

R. v. Derriksan (1975)

BC Court of Appeal.
Okanagan
Ruling.
“Section 32 of the Regulations which makes special vision for licensing fishing by Indians reinforces the concept that Indians are not otherwise excepted from the Regulations.”

R. v. Douglas (c. 1985)

BC Provincial Court
Sto:lo
Defence counsel cross-examination of the crown’s witness, DFO officer Randy Nelson
“Q. In this letter you say: “neither released, so I hit their knuckles and arms harder and harder.” Do you agree with that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now in this letter you talk about Mr. Douglas and that’s Sam Douglas, the accused, right?
A. Yes, Your Honour.
Q. And you say as follows: “My concern …is that the D.F.O. negotiates with this animal, and that he is a representative on the Salmon Commission.” Now when you say “this animal” you’re talking about Sam Douglas, aren’t you?
A. That is correct in that letter, yes Your Honour.
…Q. Next paragraph: “If Mr. Douglas is continued to be met with, I would be most disappointed and would like to know the Department’s reasoning for this. It would make about as much sense as opening a Clifford Olsen Day Care Center.”
A That’s what the letter says, Your Honour.
Q. Now are you telling this Court, that this is humour on your part?
A. Humour… yes.”

Fletcher Challenger Canada Limited v. Miller… et al. 1991, Oct 21.

Supreme Court of BC.
(C915008 Vancouver Registry)
Court Transcript. Re. Walbran Valley. Defendant John Shafer and his Amicus curae, Bruce Clark:
“CLARK: Yes. The position in law is that since there is no treaty for the area in question, the legislature of British Columbia does not have jurisdiction. For the same reason the legislature does not have jurisdiction, this court does not have jurisdiction, because this court derives its jurisdiction under the Supreme Court Act which emanates from that legislature, which itself doesn’t have jurisdiction. …So what essentially we have is this jurisdictional question is genuinely preliminary to everything else.”
SHAFER: I’m a spokesperson for a native rights organization ca1led Concerned Citizens for Aboriginal Rights. It’s a group of 300 people in Victoria. All of my research and my readings indicated to me that there was — there was a major problem in the province concerning the fact that forest companies and third parties presumed to have the right to plunder unsurrendered native territory and I can see nowhere — in all my readings — I have yet to find a case where you will find an agreement between the native nations asking that Canada or BC rule over them.”

R. v. Gladstone BC Court of Appeal 1993, June 25.

Ruling.
Heiltsuk
“On or about the 28th day of April, 1988, at or near Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully attempt to sell Herring Spawn on Kelp other than Herring Spawn on Kelp taken or collected under the authority of a Category J. Licence, contrary to Section 20 ( 3 ) of the Pacific Herring Fishery Regulation and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 6l ( 1 ) of the Fishery Act.”
Note – The judges of the BC Court of Appeal had widely differing reasons.

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests; Attorney General) BC Court of Appeal. 1997, November 7.

Ruling.
“The petitioners claim aboriginal title to a large area of British Columbia much of which is subject to tree farm licence no. 39 (T.F.L. 39) which was originally issued to the respondent MacMillan Bloedel in 1961.
“The preliminary issue of law is : whether the interest claimed by the Petitioners, namely aboriginal title, including ownership, title and other aboriginal rights over all of Haida Gwaii (the Queen Charlotte Islands), including the land, water, flora and fauna and resources thereof, is capable of constituting an encumbrance within the meaning of section 28 of the Forest Act.”

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests; Attorney General) 2000, Nov 21

BC Supreme Court

Ruling
“The evidence establishes that in September 1998, the Province published updated “British Columbia Consultation Guidelines” governing consultation with Aboriginal peoples concerning their Aboriginal rights and title, for all provincial ministries. Although the guidelines state that “…staff must not explicitly or implicitly confirm the existence of Aboriginal title when consulting with First Nations,”…

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests; Attorney Genera; Weyerhauser) 2002, Feb 27.

BC Court of Appeal.
Case analysis prepared for the Union of BC Municipalities by Bull, Housser & Tupper, Sept 2002
“The BC Court of Appeal delivered a landmark decision regarding the duty of the Crown and third parties to consult with First Nations who have asserted, but not proved, aboriginal rights or title. The order made by the Court was subsequently modified with supplemental reasons delivered on August 19, 2002.”
“The Court of Appeal made a declaration that the Province had in 2000, and the Province and Weyerhaeuser have now, legally enforceable duties to the Haida to consult with them in good faith.”

---

The west wasn’t won archive project relies on the work of volunteers for most aspects of building an archive! Drop a line to join the project, contribute documentation, or request research assistance, or… find out more.