British Colombia (Minister of Forests) v. Chief Ron M. Derrickson
The respondents' application for a preliminary ruling is dismissed as premature because constitutional challenges implicating aboriginal rights are fact driven and the court lacks jurisdiction to determine the suitability for Rule 18A summary disposition in the absence of evidence; therefore the question cannot be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2000 BCSC 719
- Parties
- Petitioner: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests; Respondents: Chief Ron M. Derrickson and Mickey Werstuik as representatives of the Westbank First Nation and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown timber at Timber Sale Licence A57997, Block 1
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 May 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Petition Alleging Constitutional Challenge to Provisions of the Forest Practices Code / Preliminary Motion Under Rule 18 a Seeking Ruling on Suitability for Summary Trial and Ability to Rely on Others' Aboriginal Rights
- Outcome
- Respondents' application for a preliminary ruling dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Forest Practices Code (sections 96 and 123), Section 35(1) Aboriginal Rights, Rule 18 a Summary Trial Procedure, Justiciability and Preliminary Rulings, Ability to Rely on Third‑party Rights
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests
Petitioner
Chief Ron M. Derrickson and Mickey Werstuik as representatives of the Westbank First Nation and all other persons engaged in the cutting, damaging or destroying of Crown timber at Timber Sale Licence A57997, Block 1
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Petition Alleging Constitutional Challenge to Provisions of the Forest Practices Code / Preliminary Motion Under Rule 18 a Seeking Ruling on Suitability for Summary Trial and Ability to Rely on Others' Aboriginal Rights
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sections 96 and 123 of the Forest Practices Code are unconstitutional for permitting unstructured discretion that risks infringing aboriginal rights and title
- 2 Whether the court can decide the suitability of the matter for summary disposition under Rule 18A in the absence of evidence
- 3 Whether respondents may rely on the aboriginal rights of others and apply the Sparrow test to challenge constitutionality on a preliminary motion
Ratio Decidendi
The respondents' application for a preliminary ruling is dismissed as premature because constitutional challenges implicating aboriginal rights are fact driven and the court lacks jurisdiction to determine the suitability for Rule 18A summary disposition in the absence of evidence; therefore the question cannot be resolved on hypothetical or possible facts.
Court Disposition
Respondents' application for a preliminary ruling dismissed
Orders
- Respondents' application for a preliminary ruling dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment