62R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220, 2005 SCC 43 .. 43, 47, 53, 54, 55, 59Re Lewis’s Declaration of Trust; Lewis v. Lewis; Lewis v. Ryder, [1953] 1 All E.R. 1005,(sub nom. Loudon v. Ryder (No. 2)), [1953] 1 All E.R. 1005, [1953] Ch. 423 (Ch. D.) ................................................................................................................................ 30, 33, 37Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700, [2007] B.C.J. No. 2465 .......... 1Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 600, [2008] B.C.J. No. 871 .... 26, 41,43, 52William v. British Columbia (HMTQ), 2009 BCCA 83, [2009] B.C.J. No. 338 ................ 29William v. British Columbia, 2002 BCSC 1904, [2002] B.C.J. No. 3366 .................. 28, 31William v. British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 964, 30 B.C.L.R. (4 th ) 382 ............................. 32William v. Riverside Forest Products Ltd., 2001 BCSC 1641, 95 B.C.L.R. (3d) 371 ..... 29Wuta-Ofei v. Danquah, [1961] 3 All E.R. 596 (P.C.), at 600 .......................................... 56Xeni Gwet’in First Nations v. British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 610, 240 D.L.R. (4 th ) 547 .......................................................................................................................................... 29Xeni Gwet'in First Nations v. British Columbia, 2002 BCCA 434, 3 B.C.L.R. (4 th ) 231 ............................................................................................................................................ 29StatutesLaw and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, s. 10 ......................................................... 33Other AuthoritiesBrian Slattery, “Understanding Aboriginal Rights” (1987) 66 Can. Bar. Rev. 727 ......... 40Carol Rose, “Possession as the Origin of Property” (1985) 52 U. of. Chic. L. R. 73 ..... 59Frederick M. Irvine, McLachlin & Taylor, British Columbia Practice, 3rd ed., looseleaf(Markham: LexisNexis, 2005) ........................................................................................ 33Kent McNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) .............. 56Lazar Sarna, The Law of Declaratory Judgements, 3 rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2007) .. 30PW Young, Declaratory Orders, 2 nd ed. (Sydney: Butterworths, 1984) ......................... 36
63R. D. C. Stewart, “Differences Between Possession of Land and Chattels” (1933) 11C.B.R. 651 ..................................................................................................................... 55Rt. Hon. The Lord Woolf & Jeremy Woolf, Zamir & Woolf, The Declaratory Judgment,3 rd ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) .......................................................... 33, 36, 38William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (London: CavendishPublishing Ltd., 2001), vol. 2 ......................................................................................... 59
- Page 1 and 2:
JUN 04 * u|UCOURT OF APPEALCourt of
- Page 3 and 4:
C. Alternative Argument: The Trial
- Page 5 and 6:
DateDecember 18,1998October 14,1999
- Page 7 and 8:
OPENING STATEMENT1. The Tsilhqot’
- Page 10 and 11:
2then Chief of the Xeni Gwet’in,
- Page 12 and 13:
414. The Tsilhqot’in people inhab
- Page 14 and 15:
6… [T]he proper rights holder, wh
- Page 16 and 17:
8F. Tsilhqot’in Territory and the
- Page 18 and 19:
10bounding the Claim Area. For them
- Page 20 and 21: 12…I am satisfied Tsilhqot’in p
- Page 22 and 23: 1452. The Trial Judge summarized th
- Page 24 and 25: 16records document numerous situati
- Page 26 and 27: 18days, Tsilhqot’in warriors also
- Page 28 and 29: 20declaration because of the manner
- Page 30 and 31: 22• On the west, from Xeni across
- Page 32 and 33: 24part of their oral traditions, pr
- Page 34 and 35: 26declaration of title in accordanc
- Page 36 and 37: 28would have cross-examined witness
- Page 38 and 39: 30circumstances of the case, which
- Page 40 and 41: 32111. In a subsequent motion, the
- Page 42 and 43: 34by the evidence, then the Court c
- Page 44 and 45: 36exactly what declaration he seeks
- Page 46 and 47: 38declaration should be granted”.
- Page 48 and 49: 40occupation sufficient to ground t
- Page 50 and 51: 42(a) The Plaintiff was not require
- Page 52 and 53: 44process and the legal requirement
- Page 54 and 55: 46157. Proof of an ancestral and mo
- Page 56 and 57: 48uncertainty”. 272 The meaning o
- Page 58 and 59: 50therefore, of opinion, that all n
- Page 60 and 61: 52land regularly used by the Tsilhq
- Page 62 and 63: 54stated that it depends on the fac
- Page 64 and 65: 56the lands in question. At common
- Page 66 and 67: 58193. Moreover, the Trial Judge’
- Page 68 and 69: 60PART 4 - NATURE OF THE ORDER SOUG
Change language