The concept of aboriginal title was first described in the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling generally known as Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997 3 SCR 1010]. The actual effect of Delgamuukw was to order a new trial because of evidenciary issues in the original trial. As a consequence, while Delgamuukw did describe the concept of aboriginal title, it did not create precedence.
In 2014, the SCC found itself again faced with a case dealing with aboriginal title. In this case, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia [2014 2 SCR 257], the court issued a ruling that firmly established the concept of aboriginal title in Canadian law.
The Delgamuukw ruling:
A Wikipedia article on Delgamuukw v British Columbia:
The Tsilhqot’in ruling:
An analysis ofTsilhqot’in by LawNow:
As I am most definitely not a lawyer, I strongly advise that you read the Delgamuukw Wikipedia article and the LawNow analysis of Tsilhqot’in, or the rulings themselves before forming any conclusions based on what I have typed above. -Danny
A Wikipedia article discussing the Canadian constitutional-grade obligation on the Crown to consult and accommodate on matters that may affect an Aboriginal person’s Aboriginal or Treaty rights.
It is almost as though the debating rules for the gun debate in the US are designed to ensure that the debate is never resolved.
Twenty people were killed in a mass shooting in El Paso, Texas on August 4, 2019. Just as I finished proofreading this post at around 0215 on August 5, 2019, my phone received a notification of a different mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio.
Note that this post references an article in The Atlantic which is dated October 6, 2017.
A careful and on point dissection of US Attorney General Bill Barr’s attempts to refute the clear thrust and substance of the Mueller report.
While presumably a fairly rare situation, this is apparently a sure-fire way to avoid jury duty.
Way way back in December of 2011, science fiction author Cory Doctorow gave a speech at the Chaos Computer Conference in Berlin. He later turned the speech into the article referenced below. That article contains the following amazing paragraph:
“As a member of the Walkman generation, I have made peace with the fact that I will require a hearing aid long before I die. It won’t be a hearing aid, though; it will really be a computer. So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests.”
Sadly, we seem to be well on our way to living in a world where technologies, wearable and otherwise, are being deployed which are designed to keep secrets from us, which are designed to prevent us from being able to control them, and which are even designed to prevent us from turning them off.
I’m not sure just how much a Canadian court can do to fix the Facebook privacy trainwreck but somebody has to try.