What evidence is required to prove the purpose of the legislation is to infringe aboriginal rights?
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.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does a party have to prove aboriginal right or title before there is a duty to consult with the aboriginal peoples? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the definition of an Aboriginal right been interpreted in the context of Aboriginal rights cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for renouncing the evidence required to prove the purpose of the contract? (British Columbia, Canada)
In an aboriginal rights and title case, how have the courts considered expert evidence in aboriginal cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of evidence required to prove deficient work? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for requiring expert evidence to prove deficient work? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any difference between whether the right of way is actually required for railway purposes and whether it is determinable at the sole will of the Indian Community Fund? (British Columbia, Canada)
How much evidence will be required by a plaintiff to prove their case on the issue of causation? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff required to lead expert evidence to overcome a no evidence motion? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will the Respondent at the Human Rights Tribunal of B.C. claim that the Applicant be denied the right to continue to pursue his human rights claim? (British Columbia, Canada)
