British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from R. v. Wilson-Jules-Derrickson, 2000 BCSC 484 (CanLII):
In the case at bar, there was no suggestion the purpose of the legislation was to infringe aboriginal rights. However, the respondents suggest that is the effect of the impugned sections and that renders it unconstitutional. Accordingly, like Canadian Egg Marketing v. Richardson, I think that evidence concerning the effects of the impugned legislation is necessary in order to determine the question of constitutionality.
There are no other similar questions at this time.