Tsilhoot'in Nation v. British Columbia and Civil Justice: Analyzing the Procedural Interaction of Evidentiary Principles and Aboriginal Oral History
![handle is hein.journals/alblr43 and id is 441 raw text is: TSILHQOT'IN NATION V. BRITISH COLUMBIA 433
TSILHQOT'INNATION V. BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CIVIL JUSTICE:
ANALYZING THE PROCEDURAL INTERACTION OF EVIDENTIARY
PRINCIPLES AND ABORIGINAL ORAL HISTORY
DWIGHT G. NEWMAN*
1. INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Delgamuukw' has been widely lauded by legal
scholars both for taking major steps forward in the definition of Aboriginal rights and for
overcoming an unjust evidentiary barrier to the appropriate hearing of Aboriginal claims
(although not without suggestions that the Court could have gone further).' Yet, that
judgment's ruling that oral history was broadly admissible as evidence in Aboriginal claims,3
despite the Court's encounter with the issues of and later comments on the application of
evidentiary principles to oral history in Mitchell,4 has not been subjected to the sort of careful
analysis necessary to operationalize it in a fully predictable and practical manner. For
instance, questions remain on what precisely it implies for the application of the principles
Tutor in Jurisprudence and Public International Law and D.Phil. candidate, Oxford University; from
1 July 2005, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan College of Law. I thank Simonne
Horwitz for our discussions on oral history.
Delgamuukiv v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 [Delgamuukw].
2 An American Society of International Law Panel treated Delgamuuklv as a landmark case tor its
advancement of the use of oral history evidence: The Creation Story of Peoples (1999) 93 Am. Soc'y
Int'l L. Proc. 52 at 53. For some of the Canadian commentary on the case, see e.g. Paul R. Cassidy,
S.C.C.'s Delgamuukw Ruling Will Revolutionize the Law (1998) 17 Lawyers Weekly 9(2), David
W. Elliott, Delgamuukw: Back to Court? (1998) 26 Man. L.J. 97; Jonathan Rudin, One Step
Forward, Two Steps Back: The Political and Institutional Dynamics Behind the Supreme Court of
Canada's Decisions in R. v. Sparrow, R. v. Van der Peet and Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1998)
13 J. L. & Social Pol'y 67; John Borrows, Sovereignty's Alchemy: An Analysis of Delgamuukiv v.
British Columbia (1999) 37 Osgoode Hall L.J. 537; Kerry Wilkins, Take Your Time and Do It Right:
Delgamuukiv, Self-Government Rights and the Pragmatics of Advocacy (2000) 27 Man. L.J. 24 1;
Gordon Christie, Delgamuukiv and the Protection of Aboriginal Land Interests (2000-2001) 32
Ottawa L. Rev. 85; Brent Olthuis, Defrosting Delgamuukv (or 'How to Reject a Frozen Rights
Interpretation of Aboriginal Title in Canada') (2000-2001) 12 N.J.C.L. 385. Comments more
specifically on the aspects related to evidence law include: Sandra A. Forbes, Developments in the Law
of Evidence: The 1997-98 Term (1999) 10 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 385; Kent McNeil, The Onus of Proof
of Aboriginal Title (1999) 37 Osgoode Hall L.J. 775; Andr6 Bourcier, Aspects linguistiques de Ia
preuve par tradition orale en droit autochtone (2000) 41 C. de D. 403; Andie Diane Palmer, Evidence
'not in a form familiar to common law courts': Assessing Oral Histories in Land Claims Testimony
After Delgamuukiv v. B.C. (2001) 38 Alta. L. Rev. 1040. The evidentiary issues had also been
presciently addressed after the trial judgment: GeoffSherrott, The Court's Treatment of the Evidence
in Delgamuukiv v. B.C. (1992) 56 Sask. L. Rev. 441; Clay McLeod, The Oral Histories of Canada's
Northern People, Anglo-Canadian Evidence Law, and Canada's Fiduciary Duty to First Nations:
Breaking Down the Barriers of the Past (1992) 30 Alta. L. Rev. 1276; Michael Asch & Catherine Bell,
Definition and Interpretation of Fact in Canadian Aboriginal Title Litigation: An Analysis of
Delgamuukiv (1993-94) 19 Queen's L.J. 503. Materials in some Continuing Legal Education programs
have also seen Delgamuukiv as offering new hopes on evidentiary issues, though not without attention
to some of the practical challenges: e.g. in B.C.'s CLE materials, Stuart Rush, Use of Oral History
Evidence in Aboriginal Rights Legislation, online: <www.cle.bc.ca/Cle/Practice+Desk/Practice
+Articles/Collection/02-app-oralhistory evidence>.
Delgamuukv, supra note I at para. 87.
Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] I S.C.R. 911, 2001 SCC 33 [Mitchell].](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/alblr43&div=21&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most