- R. v. Pamajewon
case-name=R. v. Pamajewon
full-case-name=Howard Pamajewon and Roger Jones v. Her Majesty The Queen; Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner v. Her Majesty The Queen
heard-date=February 26, 1996
decided-date=August 22, 1996
citations=  2 S.C.R. 821
ruling=Pamajewon appeal dismissed.
JoinMajority=La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
R. v. Van der Peet",  2 S.C.R. 507
"R. v. Pamajewon",  2 S.C.R. 821, is a leading
Supreme Court of Canadadecision on aboriginal self-governmentunder section 35(1) of the " Constitution Act, 1982". The Court held that the right to self-government, if it exists, is subject to reasonable limitations and excluded the right to control high stakes gambling.
First Nationsof Shawanagaand Eagle Lakepassed laws enabling high stakes gambling to take place on the reserves. The laws were not validly enacted under the " Indian Act", however, the bands justified the laws as an exercise of their power of self-government. The bands were charged for keeping a common gaming house under the " Criminal Code of Canada".
The claimants argued that gambling was a part of their distinct identity in a similar way as fishing and hunting. The Court of Appeal agreed with the bands and found that the right to gambling was protected under section 35(1).
The issue before the Court was whether the right to control high stakes gambling was protected under section 35(1) of the "Constitution Act, 1982".
Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice Lamer wrote for the majority. He stated that "assuming without deciding that s. 35(1) includes self-government claims", the existence of a right to gambling must be analysed using the test from "
R. v. Van der Peet" [  2 S.C.R. 507] . Lamer decided against characterizing the right as the right to "manage the use of their lands", but rather as the right to "participate in, and regulate, gambling activities on their respective reserve lands".
According to "Van der Peet", the right must have existed prior to contact and must have been an integral part of their distinctive culture. There was evidence that the
Ojibwaband gambled prior to first contact, but was not on any large scale, nor was it significant to be an integral part of the distinctive cultures of the bands. Consequently, Lamer found that there was no right to high stakes gambling under the aboriginal power of self-government.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Métis people (Canada) — This article is about Indigenous Canadians of mixed race. For other uses, see Metis (disambiguation). See also: Métis people (United States) The title of this article contains the character é. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may… … Wikipedia
Aboriginal peoples in Canada — Native Canadian redirects here. For Canadian born people in general, see Canadians. Aboriginal peoples in Canada … Wikipedia
First Nations — This article is about the indigenous peoples of Canada. For other indigenous peoples, see Indigenous peoples by geographic regions. First Nations … Wikipedia
Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) — Supreme Court of Canada Hearing: October 13, 1998 Judgment: May 20, 1999 … Wikipedia
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia — Supreme Court of Canada Hearing: June 16, 17, 1997 Judgment: December 11, 1997 … Wikipedia
Numbered Treaties — Aboriginal peoples in Canada … Wikipedia
Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada — Supreme Court of Canada Argued March 4, 1994 Decided October 27, 1994 Full case name: Her Majesty The Queen v. Native Women s Association of Canada, Gail Stacey Moore and Sharon McIvor … Wikipedia
Mitchell v. M.N.R. — Aboriginal peoples in Canada … Wikipedia
Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) — Aboriginal peoples in Canada … Wikipedia
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada — Departments of the Government of Canada Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Develompent Affaires autochtones et du développement du Nord canadien Minister John Duncan (Canad … Wikipedia