R. v. Marshall

R. v. Marshall

Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that their ancestors held aboriginal title to the specific cutting sites or that the 1760-61 treaties or the Royal Proclamation of 1763 conferred a right to commercially harvest and sell timber; therefore statutory prohibition under s.29 of the Crown Lands Act applied and defendants were guilty as charged.

Citation
2001 NSPC 2
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Stephen Frederick MARSHALL; Defendant: Keith Lawrence JULIEN; Defendant: Christopher James PAUL; Defendant: Jason Wayne MARR; Defendant: Simon Joseph WILMOT; Defendant: Donald Thomas PETERSON; Defendant: Stephen John KNOCKWOOD; Defendant: Ivan Alexander KNOCKWOOD; Defendant: Leander Philip PAUL; Defendant: William John NEVIN; Defendant: Roger Allan WARD; Defendant: Michael Gordon PETER-PAUL; Defendant: John Michael MARR; Defendant: Carl Joseph SACK; Defendant: Matthew Emmett PETERS; Defendant: Stephen John BERNARD; Defendant: William GOULD; Defendant: Camillius ALEX JR.; Defendant: John Allan BERNARD; Defendant: Peter Alexander BERNARD; Defendant: Eric Stephen KNOCKWOOD; Defendant: Gary HIRTLE; Defendant: Jerry Wayne HIRTLE; Defendant: Edward Joseph PETER-PAUL; Defendant: Angus Michael GOOGOO; Defendant: Lawrence Eric HAMMOND; Defendant: Thomas M. HOWE; Defendant: Daniel Joseph JOHNSON; Defendant: Dominic George JOHNSON; Defendant: James Bernard JOHNSON; Defendant: Preston MACDONALD; Defendant: Kenneth M. MARSHALL; Defendant: Stephen Maurice PETER-PAUL; Defendant: Leon R. ROBINSON; Defendant: Phillip F. YOUNG
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Decision (guilty Verdict)
Outcome
Defendants found guilty as charged
Legal Topics
Aboriginal Title, Treaty Interpretation, Royal Proclamation 1763, Timber Harvesting, Crown Lands Act S.29, Oral Tradition Evidence
Source Language
English
Aboriginal Law Property Law Criminal Law Constitutional Law Aboriginal Title Treaty Interpretation Royal Proclamation 1763 Timber Harvesting +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Stephen Frederick MARSHALL

Defendant

Keith Lawrence JULIEN

Defendant

Christopher James PAUL

Defendant

Jason Wayne MARR

Defendant

Simon Joseph WILMOT

Defendant

Donald Thomas PETERSON

Defendant

Stephen John KNOCKWOOD

Defendant

Ivan Alexander KNOCKWOOD

Defendant

Leander Philip PAUL

Defendant

William John NEVIN

Defendant

Roger Allan WARD

Defendant

Michael Gordon PETER-PAUL

Defendant

John Michael MARR

Defendant

Carl Joseph SACK

Defendant

Matthew Emmett PETERS

Defendant

Stephen John BERNARD

Defendant

William GOULD

Defendant

Camillius ALEX JR.

Defendant

John Allan BERNARD

Defendant

Peter Alexander BERNARD

Defendant

Eric Stephen KNOCKWOOD

Defendant

Gary HIRTLE

Defendant

Jerry Wayne HIRTLE

Defendant

Edward Joseph PETER-PAUL

Defendant

Angus Michael GOOGOO

Defendant

Lawrence Eric HAMMOND

Defendant

Thomas M. HOWE

Defendant

Daniel Joseph JOHNSON

Defendant

Dominic George JOHNSON

Defendant

James Bernard JOHNSON

Defendant

Preston MACDONALD

Defendant

Kenneth M. MARSHALL

Defendant

Stephen Maurice PETER-PAUL

Defendant

Leon R. ROBINSON

Defendant

Phillip F. YOUNG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Decision (guilty Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants proven to hold aboriginal title to the cutting sites
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Proclamation of 1763 confers rights to the cutting sites
  3. 3 Whether the 1760-61 Mi'kmaq treaties include a right to commercially harvest and sell timber

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that their ancestors held aboriginal title to the specific cutting sites or that the 1760-61 treaties or the Royal Proclamation of 1763 conferred a right to commercially harvest and sell timber; therefore statutory prohibition under s.29 of the Crown Lands Act applied and defendants were guilty as charged.

Court Disposition

Defendants found guilty as charged

Orders

  • Defendants convicted under s.29 Crown Lands Act; guilty verdict entered
  • Proceed to sentencing when counsel are ready