| Summary: | As a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's
decision in R. v. Sparrow, the government's fiduciary
obligations towards aboriginal peoples was extended into
the area of constitutionally entrenched aboriginal and
treaty rights. Native people expressed their expectations
that this doctrinal development would be an instrument
for native empowerment. To date, the Courts have
delivered little under the fiduciary rubric. After
examining the history and jurisprudence associated with
the fiduciary concept, a critical approach is adopted in
order to determine what phenomena are acting to limit the
doctrine's potential. Three areas are explored in an
attempt to determine why the legal system may operate to
prevent the realisation of substantive gains. These
include: inherent textual limitations, law and politics,
and 'dominant' and 'judicial' ideologies. Sparrow
represents the best impusles of reform from the Supreme
Court of Canada. Yet, because the judgment does not
openly question a hierarchical position of authority for
the Crown, it may reproduce dependency in a new form.
The study of native people's experience with fiduciary
litigation provides instruction for all disadvantaged
groups in relation to the potential of using law to
achieve social change
|
|---|
