ARTICLE
24 January 2025

Why Is The Van Der Peet Decision Important?

First Peoples Law

Contributor

First Peoples Law is a law firm dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We work exclusively with Indigenous Peoples to defend their inherent and constitutionally protected title, rights and Treaty rights, uphold their Indigenous laws and governance and ensure economic prosperity for their current and future generations. We use a collaborative, team-based approach to ensure our legal services are high quality and cost effective.

The Supreme Court's 1996 Van der Peet decision is important because it established the legal test for recognizing Aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution.
Canada Government, Public Sector

Why is the Van der Peet decision important?

The Supreme Court's 1996 Van der Peet decision is important because it established the legal test for recognizing Aboriginal rights under s. 35 of the Constitution.

Sto:lo Nation member Dorothy Van der Peet was charged under the federal Fisheries Act for selling 10 salmon caught under a food fishery licence. Van der Peet's defence was that the federal law was invalid because it infringed her section 35 Aboriginal right to sell fish.

A majority of the Court rejected the argument that section 35 Aboriginal rights are based on Indigenous people's pre-existing legal rights. Instead, it relied on the discredited United States Supreme Court Marshall decisions of the 1830s to conclude that the purpose of section 35 is to protect pre-contact practices, customs and traditions integral to an Indigenous people's distinctive culture by translating them into Aboriginal rights.

The Court held that the pre-contact exchange of fish for other goods was not a defining or central aspect of Sto:lo society. Instead, it was no more than incidental to fishing for food. Therefore, trading or selling fish did not qualify as an Aboriginal right protected under s. 35. Consequently, Van der Peet was found guilty of violating the Fisheries Act.

Two Supreme Court justices wrote detailed dissenting reasons criticizing the majority of the Court for its 'frozen rights' approach to Aboriginal rights and for ignoring the importance of Indigenous legal orders. Their criticisms have been echoed by many critics ever since.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More