R v Powley

Marie father and son, Steve and Roddy Powley, were charged in 1993 with possession of a moose that they had shot out of season and without a licence.The pair pleaded not guilty on the grounds that as Métis, they had an Aboriginal right to hunt that was not subject to Ontario game laws.Finally, Ontario appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a unanimous court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and defined a ten-step test for Métis rights, based on modified tests from the previous Indian Aboriginal rights decisions in R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Van der Peet.[2] Métis people seeking to exercise Aboriginal rights of hunting and fishing must show that the practice in question relates to the practice of a rights-bearing Métis community prior to European political and legal control and that they are members of the corresponding modern Métis community by both self-identification and acceptance within the community.[3] Thus, if a Métis group of people established a rights-bearing community distinct from any Indian or Inuit Aboriginal groups from which it had descended, practices that the community exercised prior to European control may be Section 35(1) rights.
Indigenous peoplesin CanadaFirst NationsMétisTimelinePre-colonizationGeneticsSettler colonialismGenocideResidential schoolsIndian hospitalsReconciliationIndigenous lawBritish Columbia Treaty ProcessCrown and Indigenous peoplesHealth PolicyIdle No MoreIndian ActIndigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaLand BackLand claimsLand defenderLand titleMissing and Murdered Indigenous WomenNumbered TreatiesRoyal CommissionSelf-governmentSpecific claimsTreaty rightsIndigenous personalitiesCountry foodIndian reservesTerritoriesPacific CoastInuit languagesChinuk WawaIndigenous English DialectsAboriginal syllabicsChinuk pipaInuit grammarTraditional beliefsInuit religionIndex of articlesSupreme Court of CanadaAboriginalsection 35(1)Constitution Act, 1982Sault Ste. Marieout of seasonwithout a licenceOntario Court of JusticeAttorney GeneralOntario Superior Court of JusticeOntario Court of AppealR. v. SparrowR. v. Van der PeetAboriginal groupsThe Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and MétisSection Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)R. v. PowleyCanadian Aboriginalcustomary lawAboriginal land title in CanadaRoyal Proclamation of 1763Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsSection 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActConfederationCovenant ChainGreat Peace of MontrealNanfan TreatyPeace and Friendship TreatiesDouglas TreatiesGradual Civilization ActToronto PurchasePenetanguishene Bay PurchaseLake Simcoe–Lake Huron PurchaseTreaty 45Saugeen Tract AgreementRobinson TreatiesGradual Enfranchisement ActWhite PaperJames Bay and Northern Quebec AgreementNunavut Land Claims AgreementNisga'a Final AgreementPaix des BravesDuty to consult and accommodateJordan's PrincipleOngoing treaty negotiations in British ColumbiaAttorney General of Canada v LavellR v BadgerCalder v British ColumbiaChippewas of Sarnia Band v CanadaCorbiere v CanadaDaniels v CanadaDelgamuukw v British ColumbiaNative Women's Assn of Canada v CanadaKruger v RR v Marshall; R v BernardR v MarshallMitchell v MNRPaul v British ColumbiaPaulette CaveatPowley rulingR v DrybonesR v GladstoneR v GladueGladue reportR v GonzalesR v GuerinR v JimR v PamajewonR v SparrowRe EskimosSt Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v RR v Van der PeetTsilhqot'in Nation v British ColumbiaRestoule v CanadaIndigenous customary lawGrand CouncilMiꞌkmaqGreat Law of PeaceHaudenosauneePittailiniitWahkohtowinPlains CreeIndex of articles related to Indigenous Canadians