WRITE THIS INTO A MLA REPORT

The R v Sparrow was a civil case involving an aboriginal Canadian member, Ronald Edward Sparrow. In may 1984, Sparrow was caught fishing contrary to section 61(1) of the federal Fisheries Act by using a longer fishing net than permitted by his food fishing license.

The case was first heard in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, where the judge found Sparrow guilty of the charges laid against him. In his defense, Sparrow claimed that the right to fish was an immemorial right protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The conviction was appealed to the BC County Court, which ruled in the same manner as the Provincial Court. The Musqueam community of which Sparrow was a member recognized the arrest as a threat to their collective rights, and to the rights of Aboriginal people across Canada. This led them to appeal to the BC Court of Appeals and won their appeal.

In 1988, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Musqueam had an ancestral right to fish which was protected by Constitution Act, 1982 and, if so, whether that right had been or overturned by federal legislation.

In 1990 the court ruled that the Musqueam community did have an ancestral right to fish and when Sparrow was arrested, he was exercising legitimate "existing" rights to fish. The conviction was overturned and Sparrow won his case. This led to the Supreme Court establishing a set of criteria, known as the "Sparrow test," to interpret section 35. The Court ruled that the words "recognized and affirmed," as they appear in Section 35, mean that the government cannot override or infringe upon these rights without justification. The Court did not outline what would qualify as adequate compensation regarding rights infringement. (R. v. Sparrow, 1990)

The Sparrow case is largely considered a significant victory for Indigenous rights in Canada. The ruling provided a code for interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and it confirmed the Crown's constitutional duty to provide certain guarantees to Indigenous peoples as the crown was in the frontline in defense for the defendant. Sparrow ruling upholds Indigenous rights, it also confirms that the government can legally justify infringing on those rights as it is evident when Ronald Sparrow was first arrested in 1984 and convicted for 6 years before being set free after the conviction was overturned. The case also portrays the power the community has in ensuring that the rights of Aboriginal people are upheld. The Musqueam won the appeal for sparrow and defended him in court when they felt their rights were being infringed. (Kulchyski, 1994)