R. v. Howse
Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
John Grant Howse, Dan LaFrance, Ronald Monsen, Leonel
Courchaine, Frederick Laboucane and John Pratt
[2000] B.C.J. No. 905
Cranbrook Registry No. 19504
British Columbia Provincial Court
Cranbrook, British Columbia
Waurynchuk Prov. Ct. J.
Heard: September
27 - 29, 1999, and February 8, 2000.
Judgment: April 28, 2000.
(37 paras.)
Counsel:
S. Blechingberg, for the
Crown.
J. Gereluk, for the defense.
Note: Red headings are not part of the original document but are placed
to facilitate specific references
NOTE: The page sequence of the following document has been changed
by digitization and formatting. However the original pargagraph designation
(i.e. [para1], para2], etc) hasw been maintained for reference purposes.
Constitutional
Framework
[#1] WAURYNCHUK PROV. CT. J.:-- Section 35
of the Constitution Act, 1982 reads as follows:
(1) The existing aboriginal
and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are
hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal
peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples
of Canada.
[#2] Section 52(1) of the Constitution
Act, 1982 reads as follows:
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada,
and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect.
Definition
and Identity
[#3] In R. v. Powley, [2000] O.J. No. 99
(Ont.S.C.)O'Neill, J. defined the identity of a Métis
person as follows:
A Métis is a person who,
(a) has some ancestral family connection (not necessarily genetic),
(b) identifies himself or herself as Métis and
(c) is accepted by the Métis community or a locally-organized
community branch, chapter or council of a Métis association or organization
with which that person wishes to be associated.