Abstract
In two landmark 2014 decisions — Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows — the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is all that protects existing Aboriginal and treaty rights from federal or provincial infringement: that such rights derive no additional protection from the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. This article examines that conclusion by criticizing the reasoning offered in its support, pointing out its unacknowledged doctrinal implications, and inviting a broader conversation about how the law should address them.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
