The Queen v. George

The Queen v. George

Majority: s.87 was enacted to render provincial laws of general application applicable to Indians and was not intended to subordinate federal legislation to treaty terms; accordingly the Migratory Birds Convention Act applies to the respondent and his treaty did not exempt him from the Act, so the acquittal was reversed and a guilty verdict entered.

Citation
[1966] SCR 267
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent/defendant: Calvin William George
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1966
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict of guilty entered against respondent; Cartwright J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Hunting Rights, Indian Act S.87, Treaty Rights and Interpretation, Migratory Birds Convention Act, Statutory Paramountcy Vs Treaty Rights
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Indigenous Law Constitutional/federalism Hunting Rights Indian Act S.87 Treaty Rights and Interpretation Migratory Birds Convention Act Statutory Paramountcy Vs Treaty Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant/plaintiff

Calvin William George

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.87 of the Indian Act preserves treaty hunting rights against the Migratory Birds Convention Act
  2. 2 Whether the Migratory Birds Convention Act applies to Indians hunting for food on reserve out of season
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Sikyea v. The Queen controls the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: s.87 was enacted to render provincial laws of general application applicable to Indians and was not intended to subordinate federal legislation to treaty terms; accordingly the Migratory Birds Convention Act applies to the respondent and his treaty did not exempt him from the Act, so the acquittal was reversed and a guilty verdict entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict of guilty entered against respondent; Cartwright J. dissenting

Orders

  • Verdict of guilty entered against the respondent
  • Fine of 10 imposed on the respondent (CAD)