R v Powley

Indigenous peoples in Canada
First Nations Inuit Métis
History Paleo-Indians Pre-colonization Genetics Residential schools Indian hospitals Conflicts First Nations Inuit
Politics Crown and Indigenous peoples Treaty rights Health Policy Numbered Treaties Royal Commission Self-government Indian Act British Columbia Treaty Process Idle No More Missing and murdered Indigenous women Politics Organizations Case law Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
Culture Indigenous cultures Indigenous personalities Country food Music
Demographics Indian reserves AB FN Métis Atlantic CA BC MB ON QC SK Territories Pacific Coast
Linguistics Indigenous languages Inuit languages Indigenous English Dialects NAPA Aboriginal syllabics Inuit grammar
Religions Traditional beliefs Inuit religion
Index Index of articles Indigenous First Nations Inuit Métis Stubs
Wikiprojects Portal Indigenous Canadian portal WikiProject Indigenous North Americans First Nations Commons Wiktionary Inuit Commons Wiktionary Métis Commons Wiktionary

R. v. Powley 2003 SCC 43, commonly called the Powley ruling, is a Supreme Court of Canada case defining Métis Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Background

A Sault Ste. Marie father and son, Steve and Roddy Powley, were charged in 1993 with possession of a moose that they had shot out of season and without a licence. The pair pleaded not guilty on the grounds that as Métis, they had an Aboriginal right to hunt that was unjustly infringed by Ontario game laws.

Procedural history

The Ontario Court of Justice agreed and dismissed the charges. The Ontario Attorney General appealed that decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which upheld the acquittals and denied the appeal. The Ontario Attorney General then appealed that decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal which also upheld the acquittals and denied the appeal. Finally, the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a unanimous court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and defined a ten-step test for Métis rights, based on modified tests from the previous Indian Aboriginal rights decisions in R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Van der Peet.

Aftermath

In order for this ruling to apply to specific Métis people, they have to show that the practice in question relates to the practice of a rights-bearing Métis community prior to European political and legal control, and that they are members of the corresponding modern Métis community.^[1]

This means that as long as a Métis group of people established a rights-bearing community that was distinctive from any Indian or Inuit Aboriginal groups they descended from, then the practices that community exercised prior to European control may be Section 35(1) rights.

See also

• The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis
• Canadian Indigenous case law
• Numbered Treaties
• Indian Act
• Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982
• Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)

References