Donald Marshall Case Analysis
In the Case of Donald Marshall where he was charged for fishing offseason, which went against new regulations that the government has been trying to put into place. Marshall had claimed that “the right to fish on a Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in 1760-1761 between the British Crown and the Mi’kmaq of what are now the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec” (McGaw, 1), Marshall had the right to fish and hunt offseason due to the fact that his ancestors had fought and signed for him to have that right. The court viewed the Treaty as having no power do to the fact that the policies have changed within Canada, many of the things that were promised in the treaty no longer applied to the current times.
…show more content…
The Trial court stated that “due to changes subsequent to the sighing of the treaty, the trial court found that the treaty had no longer existed and convicted Marshell” (McGaw, 1), the trial court clearly states that the due the changes of level of fishes in the sea that the treaty is no longer valid. When the case had appealed to supreme the court “the treaty rights remained, with limits. The court concluded that this right meant an entitlement to a “moderate livelihood, which “includes such basis as ‘food, clothing, and housing, supplemented by a few accumulation of wealth” (McGaw, 1). The Supreme Court states that the Mi’kmaq tribes have the right to fish offseason as long as they are able to support themselves, while not overfishing to the point of personal interest and wealth. The Mi’kmaq tribe also has the right to fish offseason for tribal ceremonies, and
The Trial court stated that “due to changes subsequent to the sighing of the treaty, the trial court found that the treaty had no longer existed and convicted Marshell” (McGaw, 1), the trial court clearly states that the due the changes of level of fishes in the sea that the treaty is no longer valid. When the case had appealed to supreme the court “the treaty rights remained, with limits. The court concluded that this right meant an entitlement to a “moderate livelihood, which “includes such basis as ‘food, clothing, and housing, supplemented by a few accumulation of wealth” (McGaw, 1). The Supreme Court states that the Mi’kmaq tribes have the right to fish offseason as long as they are able to support themselves, while not overfishing to the point of personal interest and wealth. The Mi’kmaq tribe also has the right to fish offseason for tribal ceremonies, and