Abstract
In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court addressed two main issues: (1) the standard for proving the exclusive occupation upon which Aboriginal title depends; and (2) the application of provincial laws to Aboriginal title lands, both before and after title has been established. In her discussion of the second issue, Chief Justice McLachlin attempted to clarify the law by resolving contradictions arising from prior decisions of the Court, in part by rejecting the application of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in this context. This article analyzes and critiques this aspect of her decision, and suggests alternatives that, it is argued, are more in keeping with established doctrine on the division of powers and with the constitutional status of Aboriginal title.
Citation Information
McNeil, Kent.
"Aboriginal Title and the Provinces after Tsilhqot’in Nation."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
71.
(2015).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1306
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/4
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.