Judicial Committee of the Privy Council –  A.C.Ontario Lands reserved for IndiansPropertyTreaties
This case is one of the first Canadian cases concerning the property of lands and the payment of annuities to Indians.
The Privy Council decided that the obligation to pay annuities to Aboriginals stems from the relationship they have with the Crown, and not from the property of the lands.
A distinction must be made between the obligations of an owner and the obligations that stem from legal jurisdiction.
Between the province and the Dominion, which one is liable for the increased amount of the Indian annuities?
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council –  14 A.C. 46Ontario Aboriginal titleJurisdiction over Indians
This decision from Canada’s highest court had monumental impacts on the relation between Canada and Aboriginal peoples. It governed Canada’s policy over Indian title for almost a century, until Calder, in 1973.
The Council recognized that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 gave the Indians only a right of occupancy, which encroached on the Province’s title. Once this right is ceded to the Dominion, full proprietary interest reverts to the province.
When a parcel of land ceased to be part of an Indian reserve, which jurisdiction owns the title: the provincial or the federal government?
Supreme Court of Canada –  13 S.C.R. 342Quebec Family lawSeigniorial lawSuccession
The Court considered a customary marriage, but did not decide on it. The 1869 decision in Johnstone v. Connolly remained the reference.
Was the marriage between Alexander Fraser and Angelique Meadows valid?
Was Alexander Fraser’s will revoke at Marguerite Jones’ death?
Quebec Queen’s Bench -- , 17 R.J.R.Q. 266Quebec Application of laws to AboriginalsFamily law
This decision recognizes the validity of a Cree marriage, et gives it precedence over a Catholic marriage.
Can an Aboriginal law be recognized in common law, and if so, is the traditional Cree marriage between William Connolly and Suzanne legal?
U.S. Supreme Court -- 31 U.S. 530 (1832)USA Application of laws to AboriginalsDoctrine of discovery
This American decision had been used by the Supreme Court of Canada since the very beginning of the development of Canadian Aboriginal law. It is one of the famous decisions rendered by the “Marshall court”.
Historically, Indians were considered as nations by Great Britain. A European nation acquired title to Indian lands only if the occupants decided to cede them.
Are Georgia’s laws in effect on Cherokee territory?
Supreme Court of the United States – 30 U.S. 1 (1831)USA Application of laws to AboriginalsDoctrine of discoveryGovernance (self-determination, self-government)Jurisdiction over Indians
The Cherokee Nation is subject to the laws of the State of Georgia.
There is no doubt that the Cherokee Nation constitutes a distinct political society. However, the Cherokee Nation cannot be considered “foreign” for the purposes of the US Constitution. As such, it cannot go before the Supreme Court to prevent the State of Georgia from implementing its laws.
US Supreme Court – 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)USA Aboriginal titleDoctrine of discoveryLands reserved for IndiansProperty
The decisions rendered by the “Marshall court”, including this one, marked the starting point for a judicial discussion about Aboriginals.
According to the doctrine of discovery, which binds the Aboriginals, the discoverer holds a title to the lands and an exclusive right to acquire Indian lands.
Does an Indian nation have the capacity to cede parcels of the land they occupied to private individuals?