R v Drybones

An Indian who On April 8, 1967, shortly after 11:00pm, Joseph Drybones was discovered intoxicated on the floor of the lobby of the Old Stope Hotel in Yellowknife.The motion was granted and the guilty plea was revoked by Drybones, the Court ordering a trial de novo.In the trial de novo, the crown called six witnesses, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Constables and the wife of the hotel manager who had found Drybones.While mindful of R v Gonzales (in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal found section 94 consistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights), Morrow asserted that it must be distinguished in light of Robertson and Rosetanni v. R..[8] In Robertson, Morrow noted that a majority of the Supreme Court emphasized that the appropriate test to determine a violation of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights should turn on the effect of the impugned legislation and not necessarily its intended purpose.Johnson held that discriminatory legislation requires an express declaration by Section 2 of the Bill of Rights to remain operative.However, the Bill of Rights does prohibit all discrimination "by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex" as it stipulates.Johnson also dismissed the Crown's arguments based on the purpose of the Indian Act, stressing the importance of the effect of the impugned provision in the analysis and citing, as authority, Robertston and Rosetanni v. Her Majesty The Queen.Hall further argues that the concept articulated by Justice Tysoe in R. v. Gonzales is merely the equivalent of the separate but equal doctrine established in Plessy v.[14] This doctrine, Hall notes, has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education.Chief Justice Cartwright, writing for himself in his dissenting opinion, asserted that there is simply no doubt that Drybones is guilty of contravening Section 94(b), which is "expressed in plain and unequivocal words"[16] Its meaning, he argues, cannot be altered "by the application of any rule of construction to give it a meaning other than that an Indian who is intoxicated off a reserve is guilty of an offence."[16] The Supreme Court of Canada, Cartwright writes, is therefore faced with the unprecedented dilemma of whether to give full effect to the Indian Act or to declare that it "is pro tanto repealed by the Bill [of Rights].He moreover noted that in Robertson[8] he considered this question himself in his dissent, concluding that the Canadian Bill of Rights shall triumph over any inconsistency even to the point of rendering offensive legislation inoperative.However, he argued that it is merely a reiteration of an already well-established common law principle, since a rule of construction can never have an "effect against the clearly expressed will of Parliament in whatever form it is put.[25] With respect to the disposition, Pigeon wrote that he would allow the appeal and reverse the judgment of the inferior courts and affirm Drybones' conviction and sentence.
Supreme Court of CanadaCanadian Bill of RightsIndian ActYellowknifeimprisonmentTerritorial Court of the Northwest Territoriestrial de novoRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceR v Gonzalesleave to appealGonzalesR. v. Gonzalesseparate but equal doctrineUnited States Supreme CourtBrown v. Board of EducationThe Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and MétisNumbered TreatiesSection Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)Canadian AboriginalIndigenous lawcustomary lawAboriginal land title in CanadaRoyal Proclamation of 1763Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsSection 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982Treaty rightsUnited 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 PrincipleLand claimsspecific claimsOngoing 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 GladstoneR v GladueGladue reportR 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 lawSelf-governmentGrand CouncilMiꞌkmaqGreat Law of PeaceHaudenosauneePittailiniitWahkohtowinPlains CreeIndex of articles related to Indigenous Canadians