Abstract
Three elements in the Supreme Court of Canada's current doctrine of Aboriginal title raise the question whether there is any meaningful content left to the notion of underlying, or radical, Crown title. The first element is the sui generis legal foundation of Aboriginal title in the Aboriginal use and occupation of land prior to the Crown's assertion of sovereignty. The second is the constitutional protection of Aboriginal title, including the potential requirement of full Aboriginal consent to certain Crown proposals. The final element is the Court's stated focus on reconciliation as the overarching goal of modern Aboriginal law, and on negotiation as the preferred means of achieving it. I argue that the first two elements have already in principle largely whittled down the doctrinal content of radical Crown title, while in practice its continued recognition creates the kind of imbalance at the negotiating table that undermines reconciliation. I suggest the Court should therefore consider alternatives to upholding radical Crown title to Aboriginal land.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.