| R v Van der Peet | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: November 27, 28, 29, 1995 Judgment: August 21, 1996 | |
| Full case name | Dorothy Marie Van der Peet v Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 |
| Docket No. | 23803 [1] |
| Ruling | Van der Peet appeal dismissed |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major | |
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Lamer C.J., joined by La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major JJ. |
| Dissent | L'Heureux-Dubé J. |
| Dissent | McLachlin J. |
| Laws applied | |
| R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 | |
R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 is a leading case on Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court held that Aboriginal fishing rights did not extend to commercial selling of fish. From this case came the Van der Peet test for determining if an Aboriginal right exists. This is the first of three cases known as the Van der Peet trilogy which included R v NTC Smokehouse Ltd and R v Gladstone.
On September 11, 1987, Steven and Charles Jimmy caught sockeye salmon near Chilliwack. The men were both holders of valid native food fish licenses, so the fish were legally caught, but they were forbidden from selling the fish. Charles Jimmy brought the fish to his common-law partner, Dorothy Van der Peet, a member of the Stó:lō Nation, and she cleaned the fish and set them on ice. Van der Peet was visited by Marie Lugsdin, a non-Indigenous person, who offered to purchase ten fish at $5 a piece, for a total of $50. Van der Peet agreed and was later charged, under British Columbia Fishery Regulations, with having unlawfully sold fish caught under a food (only) fish license.[2][3]
At trial, the judge held that the Aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes did not extend to the right to sell fish commercially. A summary appeal judge overturned the verdict, but it was subsequently overturned at the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The issue before the Court was whether the law preventing sale of the fish infringed Van der Peet's Aboriginal rights under section 35.
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 23803 Supreme Court of Canada
- ^ Brent Mudry, Hunters bag rights in appeal court, Windspeaker 11:8 (1993)
- ^ Thomas D. Marshall, Van Der Peet Revisited: A second look at the ‘Relevant Time’ Requirement, Masters of Laws Major Paper, UOttawa