Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law. In 1969, Frank Arthur Calder and the Nisga'a Nation Tribal Council brought an action against the British Columbia government for a declaration that aboriginal title to certain lands in the province had never been lawfully extinguished.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| - Calder v British Columbia (AG) (en)
- Calder c. Colombie-Britannique (procureur général) (fr)
- コールダー対ブリティッシュコロンビア州司法長官 (ja)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Calder c. Colombie-Britannique (procureur général) est une décision de la Cour suprême du Canada qui reconnait, pour la première fois au sein du droit canadien, qu'un titre ancestral autochtone territorial existe avant la colonisation du continent et que celui-ci n'est pas simplement dérivé du droit législatif. (fr)
- コールダー対ブリティッシュコロンビア州司法長官（Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973 S.C.R. 313, 1973 4 W.W.R. 1) とは、カナダ最高裁判所による決定の一つである。土地に対するがアメリカ大陸の植民地化に先だって存在し、かつ、それが法令としての法にだけ由来するものではないとカナダ法が認知したのは、これが初めてのことだった。 1967年に、インディアン部族評議会は、ブリティッシュ・コロンビア州内のいくつかの土地に対する先住民権はこれまでに法的に消滅させられたことがなかったという申立てをし、州政府を相手取り訴訟を起こした。 公判および上告において、裁判所は、その土地をめぐる先住民権はかつて存在したが、それは確実に消滅させられたという評決を下した。 カナダ最高裁は、の時には存在していた土地に対する先住民権が確かに存在したという評決を下した。だが、裁判所では、土地に対する請求が妥当かどうかをめぐり、3対3に意見が割れた。一方の側は、権利は存在してはいたものの、その土地の管理についての政府による行使の効力によって、消滅させられたと主張したが、もう一方の側は、権利消滅を示すにはそれでは不十分だと主張した。 (ja)
- Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law. In 1969, Frank Arthur Calder and the Nisga'a Nation Tribal Council brought an action against the British Columbia government for a declaration that aboriginal title to certain lands in the province had never been lawfully extinguished. (en)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Dissent
| |
| JoinDissent
| - Spence and Laskin JJ (en)
|
| JoinMajority
| - Martland and Ritchie JJ (en)
|
| citations
| |
| history
| - Judgment for the Attorney General of British Columbia in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. (en)
|
| majority
| |
| ratio
| - While aboriginal title can exist, more was required to demonstrate that the aboriginal bands in question had such title. (en)
|
| has abstract
| - Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law. In 1969, Frank Arthur Calder and the Nisga'a Nation Tribal Council brought an action against the British Columbia government for a declaration that aboriginal title to certain lands in the province had never been lawfully extinguished. At trial and on appeal, the courts found that if there ever was aboriginal title in the land it was surely extinguished. The Supreme Court recognized that the Nisga'a had aboriginal title to the lands at the time when European settlers arrived. This was because the Nisga'a had been "organized in societies and occup[ied] the land as their forefathers had done for centuries" (Justice Judson, writing for a three-justice plurality) and because they had "possession from time immemorial" (Justice Hall, writing for a separate three-justice plurality). Hall also found parallel support for aboriginal title in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. However, the Court was split three to three on whether the title was still valid or had been extinguished. The two three-justice pluralities developed competing tests for extinguishment of aboriginal title and came to differing conclusions. Judson asked whether the government exercised "complete dominion over the lands in question, adverse to any right of occupancy"—whether the government exercised a sovereignty that was inconsistent with aboriginal title. They found that the government extinguished the Nisga'a's aboriginal title through a series of alienations by Governor Douglas and the Government of British Columbia. Hall asked instead whether a "competent legislative authority" had enacted specific legislation revealing "clear and plain" intention to extinguish aboriginal title. This had not happened, so this three-justice plurality concluded that the Nisga'a still had aboriginal title in 1973. This test was eventually accepted as the proper test for extinguishment in R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075. Justice Pigeon concurred with the decision of Judson, but only on the bottom-line disposition to dismiss the appeal. Pigeon did not reach the merits of the case because of jurisdictional reasons. (en)
- Calder c. Colombie-Britannique (procureur général) est une décision de la Cour suprême du Canada qui reconnait, pour la première fois au sein du droit canadien, qu'un titre ancestral autochtone territorial existe avant la colonisation du continent et que celui-ci n'est pas simplement dérivé du droit législatif. (fr)
- コールダー対ブリティッシュコロンビア州司法長官（Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1973 S.C.R. 313, 1973 4 W.W.R. 1) とは、カナダ最高裁判所による決定の一つである。土地に対するがアメリカ大陸の植民地化に先だって存在し、かつ、それが法令としての法にだけ由来するものではないとカナダ法が認知したのは、これが初めてのことだった。 1967年に、インディアン部族評議会は、ブリティッシュ・コロンビア州内のいくつかの土地に対する先住民権はこれまでに法的に消滅させられたことがなかったという申立てをし、州政府を相手取り訴訟を起こした。 公判および上告において、裁判所は、その土地をめぐる先住民権はかつて存在したが、それは確実に消滅させられたという評決を下した。 カナダ最高裁は、の時には存在していた土地に対する先住民権が確かに存在したという評決を下した。だが、裁判所では、土地に対する請求が妥当かどうかをめぐり、3対3に意見が割れた。一方の側は、権利は存在してはいたものの、その土地の管理についての政府による行使の効力によって、消滅させられたと主張したが、もう一方の側は、権利消滅を示すにはそれでは不十分だと主張した。 (ja)
|
| case-name
| - Calder v British Columbia (en)
|
| Concurrence
| |
| decided-date
| |
| full-case-name
| - Frank Calder et al., suing on their own behalf and on behalf of All Other Members of the Nishga Tribal Council, and James Gosnell et al., suing on their own behalf and on behalf of All Other Members of the Gitlakdamix Indian Band, and Maurice Nyce et al., suing on their own behalf and on behalf of All Other Members of the Canyon City Indian Band, and W.D. McKay et al., suing on their own behalf and on behalf of All Other Members of the Greenville Indian Band, and Anthony Robinson et al., suing on their own behalf and on behalf of All Other Members of the Kincolith Indian Band v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (en)
|
| heard-date
| |
| NotParticipating
| - Fauteux CJ and Abbott J (en)
|
| ruling
| |
| SCC
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)