Author ORCID Identifier
Karen Drake: 0000-0003-1804-5357
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
7-2021
Source Publication
Canadian Native Law Reporter, Special Edition (2020)
Abstract
The appellants held bingo games on their respective reserves pursuant to their own laws. The appellants from Shawanaga First Nation were convicted under section 201(1) of the Criminal Code for keeping a common gaming house or common betting house. The appellants from Eagle Lake First Nation were convicted under section 206(1)(d) of the Criminal Code for conducting a scheme for the purpose of determining the winners of property. The appellants argued that section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, protects their right of self-government, which includes the right to regulate gambling on their reserves, and thus the Criminal Code is of no force or effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with this right, pursuant to section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The appellants were convicted at trial. The Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada dismissed their appeals. The appellants appealed to the Indigenous Nations Court.
*The Indigenous Nations Court (INC) is not a real court and this is not an actual appeal. Karen Drake, the author of this “judgment,” is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is not a judge.
Repository Citation
Drake, Karen, "Howard Pamajewon and Roger Jones (Appellants) v Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) and Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner (Appellants) v Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent)and The Attorney General of Canada,the Attorney General of Quebec,the Attorney General of Manitoba,the Attorney General of British Columbia,the Attorney General for Saskatchewan,the Attorney General for Alberta,the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs,the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and White Bear First Nations, and Delgamuukw et al (Interveners) [Indexed as: R v Pamajewon]" (2021). Articles & Book Chapters. 3184.
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works/3184