Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
I understand better what you are saying now after your last post (the living standards rather than the litigation itself), and I can agree with that. Earlier you seemed to be speaking about something else.
Most of these cases are founded on some claim that the Federal Government failed in their fiduciary duty towards First Nations. I am interested in that as a legal argument. I know lawyers and experts that worked on the Samson case.
The legal arguments can be successful, but that does not necessarily translate into better conditions.
|
Are they interesting? The legal foundations for these cases seem to be shaky. For example, in the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) oral testimony was judged to be allowable on the same grounds as all other evidence. This is in direction contradiction of fact-finding in the judicial process.
The Chilcoten case that granted aboriginal title failed to mention that there are thirteen entities that call themselves Chilcotin. A lot of the time, the so-called successful rulings muddy the water even further, but they do create more work for the lawyers.