The Conflation of the Justification Framework for Infringement of Aboriginal Rights with the Oakes Test in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
D. Côté
{"title":"The Conflation of the Justification Framework for Infringement of Aboriginal Rights with the Oakes Test in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia","authors":"D. Côté","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.15667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada replaced the test for the justification of Aboriginal rights infringements with a framework that is nearly indistinguishable from the Oakes test. The goal of this paper is to show that this development in the law, and thus the current justification framework, is undesirable and erroneous. This paper submits four reasons to arrive at this conclusion. First, the justification test proposed in Tsilhqot'in mirrors the test rrequired to prove an infringement of Aboriginal rights, whose burden of proof falls on the Indigenous party, and hence shifts the entire onus of proving justification from the Crown to the Indigenous party. Second, the conflation of the Oakes test with the justification framework makes justification effectively impossible, which may cause reluctance amongst courts to recognize Aboriginal rights. Third, Aboriginal rights are fundamentally different from Charter rights and should not be subjected to a test designed for the Charter. Fourth, the incorporation of the Oakes test into the justification framework runs contrary to established principles of constitutional interpretation. These four reasons merit abandoning the framework proposed in Tsilhqot'in. Otherwise, this area of the law will be riddled with doctrinal flaws and Indigenous interests will suffer.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.15667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada replaced the test for the justification of Aboriginal rights infringements with a framework that is nearly indistinguishable from the Oakes test. The goal of this paper is to show that this development in the law, and thus the current justification framework, is undesirable and erroneous. This paper submits four reasons to arrive at this conclusion. First, the justification test proposed in Tsilhqot'in mirrors the test rrequired to prove an infringement of Aboriginal rights, whose burden of proof falls on the Indigenous party, and hence shifts the entire onus of proving justification from the Crown to the Indigenous party. Second, the conflation of the Oakes test with the justification framework makes justification effectively impossible, which may cause reluctance amongst courts to recognize Aboriginal rights. Third, Aboriginal rights are fundamentally different from Charter rights and should not be subjected to a test designed for the Charter. Fourth, the incorporation of the Oakes test into the justification framework runs contrary to established principles of constitutional interpretation. These four reasons merit abandoning the framework proposed in Tsilhqot'in. Otherwise, this area of the law will be riddled with doctrinal flaws and Indigenous interests will suffer.
Tsilqot'in民族诉不列颠哥伦比亚案中侵犯原住民权利的辩护框架与Oakes测试的冲突
在Tsilhqot'In Nation诉不列颠哥伦比亚省一案中,加拿大最高法院用一个与Oakes测试几乎没有区别的框架取代了对侵犯原住民权利的正当性的测试。本文的目的是表明法律的这种发展,以及目前的正当理由框架,是不可取和错误的。本文提出了得出这一结论的四个理由。首先,Tsilhqot'in中提出的正当性测试反映了证明侵犯原住民权利所需的测试,原住民权利的举证责任落在原住民一方身上,因此将证明正当性的全部责任从王室转移到了原住民一方。其次,将奥克斯测试与正当理由框架混为一谈,使得正当理由实际上是不可能的,这可能会导致法院不愿承认原住民的权利。第三,土著人的权利与《宪章》的权利有根本不同,不应受到《宪章》规定的测试。第四,将奥克斯测试纳入正当理由框架违背了宪法解释的既定原则。这四个原因值得放弃Tsilqot'in提出的框架。否则,这一法律领域将充满理论缺陷,土著人的利益将受到损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信