Mcivor V. Canada Case Study

Reviews the amendments of the 1868 Indian Act, highlighting the conflicts of superiority of rights to Indian men over women. Discusses the avoidance of violence and discrimination against women within communities and the need for an equal relationship between genders

Under the Indian Act women became fully dependent of their fathers and husbands for their Status as well as their band membership and made heterosexuality mandatory, thus cutting off sexuality rights. If a woman married a man who had Status and was a member of a different band she and her children would then become members of the husband’s band. If a woman married a ‘Non Status’ man or non-Indian man she and all of her children would have lost their

Since the colonization of Canada First Nations people have been discriminated against and assimilated into the new culture of Canada through policies created by the government. Policies created had the intentions of improving the Aboriginal people’s standard of living and increasing their opportunities. Mainly in the past hundred years in Canadian Society, policies and government implemented actions such as; Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reserve systems have resulted in extinguishing native culture, teachings, and pride. Policies towards the treatment of Aboriginal Canadians has decreased their opportunities and standard of living because of policies specified previously (Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reservation systems).

Treaty benefits, health, rights to living on the reserve and property are forfeited as a result of losing Indian status. This also happens when an Indian women gets married to another Indian man. She loses her rights to her own band, and has to become a member of her husband’s band. Ultimately, if the women becomes widowed or abandoned then she loses all status of being an Indian all together. On the other hand, men can marry a non-status woman and all of his rights would be kept. With strides of equality throughout history, it takes a step back when Aboriginal women are entirely dependent of their husband. Several cases were took to court in the 1970’s, but not until 1980 is when there was a connection found between the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Act. With this section in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the removal of a woman’s Indian status while marrying a non-Indian man was done and Bill C-31 was passed so victims of the Indian Act can be reimbursed. However, Bill C-31 is still under scrutiny because those who have their status reinstated to them can only pass it on for one generation. This is a violation under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Payne, 1992). The Indian Act is a controversial piece of legislation that was passed in 1876. It has been amended throughout the times, but the core concept of the Indian Act still

Canada ­as a nation is known to the world for being loving, courteous, and typically very welcoming of all ethnicities. Nevertheless, the treatment of Canada’s Indigenous population over the past decades, appears to suggest otherwise. Indigenous people have been tormented and oppressed by the Canadian society for hundreds of years and remain to live under discrimination resulting in cultural brutality. This, and more, has caused severe negative cultural consequences, psychological and sociological effects. The history of the seclusion of Indigenous people has played a prominent aspect in the development and impact of how Indigenous people are treated and perceived in today’s society. Unfortunately, our history with respect to the treatment of Indigenous communities is not something in which we should take pride in. The Indian Act of 1876 is an excellent model of how the behavior of racial and cultural superiority attributed to the destruction of Indigenous culture and beliefs. The Indian Act established by the Canadian government is a policy of Aboriginal assimilation which compels Indigenous parents under threat of prosecution to integrate their children into Residential Schools. As a nation, we are reminded by past actions that has prompted the weakening of the identity of Indigenous peoples. Residential schools has also contributed to the annihilation of Indigenous culture which was to kill the Indian in the child by isolating them from the influence of their parents and

The Indian Act was an attempt by the Canadian government to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society through means such as Enfranchisement, the creation of elective band councils, the banning of aboriginals seeking legal help, and through the process of providing the Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs extreme control over the aboriginals, such as allowing the Superintendent to decide who receives certain benefits, during the earlier stages of the Canadian-Indigenous' political interaction. The failure of the Indian Act though only led to more confusion regarding the interaction of Canada and the aboriginals, giving birth to the failed White Paper and the unconstitutional Bill C-31,

According to the Indian Act (1876), we determined someone’s status by one’s parentage of blood quantum to know how much Indian were they? A First Nations woman, who married with white man, lost her entitlements as Indian, so did her children. However, regardless of race or ethnicity, if another raced woman married a First Nations man, she gained “status” under the terms of the Indian Act. I feel that was completely unfair, and obviously discriminatory, that horrific situation continued until 1985.

Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s Canada achieves it’s ‘just society” by developing equal and fair rights through collective rights for some of its most affected groups. Canada achieved its goal in becoming a just society by amending the collective rights of the Aboriginals. Since Confederation the Federal

Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the

To many people, Canada exemplifies a country that fulfills human rights and equality being the country of ‘freedom’. However, the Canadian government has distorted certain information including poverty that impacts many Aboriginal individuals daily. In theory, it is impossible to effectively analysis the impact that the past has imposed on Aboriginal people in Canada today. With this being said addressed below are several important historical government actions and legislations such as the Indian Act, Royal Proclamation, force segregation on reserves, and residential schooling impacting Aboriginal Canadians social conditions today. Fundamentally my goal is to address the idea that historical events are a crucial factor impacting Aboriginal

Previous studies of the realities faced by the systematically disadvantaged Aboriginal peoples of Canada have emphasized the crippling impact of non- Aboriginal ignorance of these facts, making addressing these conditions of life for Aboriginals impossible (Schaefli 2012, p. 1) and easily maintained through colonialization. As discussed in this course, colonialization and systematic discrimination against Aboriginal peoples has resulted in their overrepresentation in Canadian incarceration institutions (Comack, 2014, pp. 116-142). To expand on this concept, it is my intention to argue that the Canadian Legal system has historically, and continues to, internally and sexually colonized Aboriginal peoples in Canada, suppressing their livelihood, cultures and communities. The political and legislative approaches of Canada’s provincial and federal government are the root of Aboriginal peoples’ historically subordinate political and socio-economic position within Canadian society. In the following essay, I will argue this claim by drawing on the history of containment, displacement, and assimilation of Aboriginal peoples in Eastern dominating Canadian society. I will also discuss and analyze the devastating situations of Aboriginal women, which emerged with the sexual colonialization of Aboriginal peoples sanctioned by the Canadian government and justice system. I will do this by providing historical and statistical evidence from scholarly sources regarding the impacts of

In examining the constitutional jurisprudence since 1982, it can be seen that most cases have followed along with Trudeau’s objectives of individual rights protection. However, Trudeau’s article The Value of a Just Society notes that communal rights of Aboriginal communities represent a notable exception. He defends this, mentioning that these collective rights are enshrined where “the rights of individuals may be indistinct and difficult to define.” The Canadian Constitution is uncommon in the fact that it protects cultural rights, such as linguistic and Aboriginal rights. It is important for Canada to protect these rights, as Canada is made up of many different groups of people. It was Trudeau’s desire that the constitution protect everyone equally, “without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” By assigning rights to the individual rather than to collectives, linguistic

Power is what ultimately determines if one is facing social exclusion and that is due to there is no influence on government decisions in which Indigenous people face this in Canada because they are seen as minority to the population. Policy makers make policies to better one’s lifestyle from what it was, however; by implanting restrictions on residential schools, taking away land it causes a change in family structures and social structures now shifting to health regimes. Social exclusion leads situation were there is no means of hope causing one stress. By creating policies that result in one feeling socially excluded, instead governments should be making policies that protect the minority and provide them with employment opportunities. (Social Exclusion,

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

This case (Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada) is similar to the case being analyzed (Groupe Honco Inc. v. Her Majesty The Queen) in the fact that they both seem to be entering amalgamations in order to receive a tax free benefit. In Copthorne Holdings Ltd. v. Canada, the PUC of the previously known subsidiary became included in the PUC of the amalgamated corporation. In Groupe Honco Inc. v. Her Majesty The Queen, the capital dividend account of Old Supervac transferred to the amalgamated corporation New Supervac. In order to receive tax free benefits, the parent and subsidiary corporations in Copthorne Holdings became sister corporations prior to amalgamation in order to have a larger PUC. When shares were redeemed and a payout occurred to the non-resident shareholder, it was much larger than it would have been had the subsidiary PUC been cancelled upon amalgamation. In the Groupe Honco case, the acquirers of the Old Supervac claimed to have no knowledge of the capital dividend account. When the CDA came to light, they then tried to pay out a capital dividend from New Supervac to Groupe Honco who then paid a capital dividend to Gestion Paul Lacasse. In both situations the parties are disobeying the anti-avoidance rule.