1. The Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 S.C.C. 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256 erred as a matter of law by interpreting section 35(1):— in breach of the maxim1 interpretatio cessat in claris [interpretation stops when a text is clear]; since, as held in R. v.
1. The Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 S.C.C. 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256 erred as a matter of law by interpreting section 35(1):— in breach of the maxim1 interpretatio cessat in claris [interpretation stops when a text is clear]; since, as held in R. v.
1. The Supreme Court of Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 S.C.C. 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256 erred as a matter of law by interpreting section 35(1):— in breach of the maxim1 interpretatio cessat in claris [interpretation stops when a text is clear]; since, as held in R. v. Nicholas, 232 A.P.R. 248, ¶9 (1988), by Justice Dickson of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, the “use of the expression existing aboriginal and treaty rights in s.
The first principle of the rule of law in a constitutional democracy is constitutional supremacy: when in conflict with federal or provincial legislation constitutional legislation is paramount and the other legislation is void.
Most determinatively section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867, enacts that provincial Crown land remains subject to the Indian interest in such land as remains unceded by the Indians to the Crown, by nation-to-nation treaty.
