First Marshall Decision, 1999

Europeans and Aboriginal peoples used treaties to secure relations (i.e. Trade, relations and military alliances)

Once Indian nations were not needed as trading partners, treaties were used for purchasing land.

After the 1920s First Nations were prevented from claiming treaty rights in Canadian Courts.

Treaty rights were given constitutional protection in s. 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Marshall was charged with three offences: fishing for eels without a licence, fishing out of season using illegal nets, selling eels without a license.

His defence was that it violated the rights which they had secured a treaty with Britain in 1760.

Justice Binnie confirmed the treaty included the right to harvesting activities which provided Mi'kmaqs to trade in order to maintain a 'moderate livelihood.'

Donald Marshall Jr. was acquitted

The interpretation of treaty rights which were used to secure friendly relations to establish trading partnerships

The right to trade once the truck houses were gone

The use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting treaties

Limited scope of treaty rights

Do you think that treaties should be interpreted in the context in which they were once written or should the courts use extrinsic evidence to clarify ambiguity?