Delgamuukw v British Columbia

Delgamuukw v British Columbia
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: June 16, 17, 1997 Judgment: December 11, 1997
Full case name	Delgamuukw, also known as Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Houses of Delgamuukw and Haaxw (and others) v Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and The Attorney General of Canada
Citations	[1997] 3 SCR 1010
Docket No.	23799 [1]
Ruling	Appeal allowed in part, cross appeal dismissed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major
Reasons given
Majority	Lamer CJ (paras 1-186), joined by Cory and Major JJ
Concurrence	McLachlin J (para 209)
Concurrence	La Forest J (paras 187-208), joined by L'Heureux-Dubé J
Iacobucci, Gonthier, and Sopinka JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa,^[2][3] or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title (a distinct kind of Aboriginal right) in Canada.^[4]: 99 The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed.^{[5][6]: para 16} The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.^{[4]: 91 [7]}

While much of the decision is technically obiter dicta (since a new trial was ordered due to errors in how the evidence and pleadings were treated), the principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.^{[8][6][4]: 100, 104} There has not yet been a second trial in this case.