test Browse by Author Names Browse by Titles of Works Browse by Subjects of Works Browse by Issue Dates of Works

Advanced Search
& Collections
Issue Date   
Sign on to:   
Receive email
My Account
authorized users
Edit Profile   
About T-Space   

T-Space at The University of Toronto Libraries >
Indigenous Law Journal >
Fall 2003, Volume 2, No. 1 >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17107

Title: Reconciliation and the Supreme Court: The Opposing Views of Chief Justices Lamer and McLaughlin
Authors: McNeil, Kent
Issue Date: 1-Oct-2003
Publisher: Indigenous Law Journal
Abstract: The Supreme Court of Canada has said that Aboriginal rights were recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Constitution in 1982 in order to reconcile Aboriginal peoples’ prior occupation of Canada with the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty. However, sharp divisions appeared in the Court in the 1990s over how this reconciliation is to be achieved. Chief Justice Lamer, for the majority, understood reconciliation to involve the balancing of Aboriginal rights with the interests of other Canadians. In some situations, he thought this could justify the infringement of Aboriginal rights to achieve, for example, economic and regional fairness. Justice McLachlin, on the other hand, in strongly worded dissent, regarded infringement for such purposes as unconstitutional. In her opinion, reconciliation can best be achieved through negotiation and the timehonoured process of treaty making.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17107
ISSN: 1703-4566
Rights: Indigenous Law Journal
Appears in Collections:Fall 2003, Volume 2, No. 1

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
ILJ-2-McNeil.pdf128.85 kBAdobe PDF

Items in T-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.