Title Notes

Title

Content, Scope, Origins (Delgamuukw)

-arises from prior-occupation to Cr sovereignty

- nature of the interest in land:

-Adams/Cote: title is a sub set of rights

- more than an aboriginal right to engage in specific activities on the land- need not be aspects of distinct culture

- a right to exclusive use and occupation of land

-includes an economic component

- affirmed by:

1. jurisprudence: Guerin: title is an interest in the land: legal right to occupation and possession

2. relationship to reserve land: s. 18 IA: nature of interest in reserve land is broad and not dependent on particular uses

3. Indian Oil and Gas Act: presumption that FN interest in reserve land includes mineral rights, which is not a traditional USE of land and therefore the title award is not just uses of the land.

Characteristics: (Delgamuukw)

1. Sui Generis: its characteristics cannot be completely articulated by CL or by FN law, must be understood by equally looking at both systems and perspectives: therefore title is not like other interests in the land at CL:

   1. Inalienable to anyone but the Crown: done to protect Indian land from being sold to settlers. Thought that aboriginal groups did not understand property law at the time and could be taken advantage of and sell land without understanding the implications.

   2. subject to an inherent limit: not a full inalienable fee simple: cannot be used in a manner that is irreconcilable with the nature of the claimant’s attachment to the land. The law of title seeks to determine pre-sovereignty rights but also seeks to secure the rights and afford legal protection to the present and future users of the land. If the use threatens the future relationship then it is excluded from aboriginal title.

   3. Communal/collective

2. Protected by section 35(1): constitutionalized the aboriginal rights at common law. The existence of title right in CL is sufficient by not necessary for proof of title under s. 35(1) because of the purposes of s. 35(1):

   1. reconciliation

   2. upholding the honour of the Crown

   3. to preserve the integral and defining features of distinctive FN societies; to potentially protect against historical injustices (Delga)

Interpretative Approach to s. 35 (Sparrow)

• rights are not frozen: must be interpreted as an evolving, adapting to new contexts

• the court must take a purposive, liberal approach to ensure rights claims are not static: must look at the analysis in light of the underlying reasons behind se. 35(1) rights protections: recognition of prior occupancy and reconciliation bw aboriginal peoples living in distinctive societies, with their own practices, traditions and cultures, and the sovereignty of the crown (VDP)

• hence there is a generous and liberal interpretation in favour of aboriginal peoples

• this stems from the fiduciary relationship between aboriginal people and the crown

• takes into account the aboriginal perspective to determine the meaning of the right at stake

• guiding principles for title:

• goal of reconciliation runs throughout: based in 2 sovereignties, prior occupation

• use of both legal perspectives as evidentiary sources

• CRITIQUES of espoused commitment to incorporating FN perspective:

  • This is limited as the perspective must be framed in terms that are cognizable to the Canadian legal and constitutional structure which such is the decision in Marshall and Bernard, are not serving reconciliation very well

  • There is a question on how it is to be cognizable to the Canadian system of common law, especially if common law can change and be fluid and dynamic, and is supposed to include ‘customary’ law

  • True reconciliation is supposed to align the two systems together, so fitting one into the other is not reconciling

  • Macklem and Ash: cts relying on an contingent as opposed to inherent approach to rights, e.g. in Sparrow

  • if the aboriginal perspective were truly taken into account along with the CL (McNeil):

    • could mean that the onus of proving the right would be flipped to the Crown on the basis of the common law legal doctrine of trespass: crown would be the wrongful taker of the land and have to prove and justify the assertion of ultimate title

    • however bc it stands that BoP is on FN group to prove occupation pre sovereignty> may not really be giving a liberal and generous interpretation

Test: (Delgamuukw)

A. Required Criteria for Proof of Title: (onus on claimant, on BoP)

1.) Land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty:

-selected bc:

- FN title is a mere qualification or burden on Cr title, which did not occur until Cr sovereignty so it would not make sense to speak of a burden on title until that title existed

-more certain than date of 1^st contact

-based on the concept of meeting nation to nation

-rejects terra nullius, bc of reconciliation and s. 35(1), but bc of ultimate Cr title underlying adoption of the principle of discovery and principle of occupation

-evidentiary proof: both FN and CL perspectives should be used

-rationale: upholds honour of the Cr (Del); reflects reconciliation goals (VDP)

-method:

-use a sensitive and generous approach and reconcile the FN w CL perspective: interpret what a certain practice or event would have signified and translate that into a comparable practice or event in the CL (B/M)

- FN perspective: occupation can be made out in reference to FN laws in relation to the land, e.g. tenure systems, laws governing use and access

-CL perspective: physical occupation: evidence of dwellings, hunting, fishing, manner of life, technological ability, group size and character of the lands claimed: proof of homes, cultivated fields, regular use of tracts of land

-Calder: proof of ownership is possession, predates and recognized in RP

2.) if present occupation if presented as proof of prior occupation,...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Aboriginal Law Notes.