翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R&R Ice Cream ・ R v Owen ・ R v Pamajewon ・ R v Pan; R v Sawyer ・ R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc ・ R v Park ・ R v Parks ・ R v Patel ・ R v Patrick ・ R v Peacock ・ R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka ・ R v Penguin Books Ltd ・ R v Perka ・ R v Peverett ・ R v Plant ・ R v Powley ・ R v Prince ・ R v Pritchard ・ R v Prosper ・ R v Quick ・ R v Rahey ・ R v Reed ・ R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal ・ R v Richards ・ R v Richardson ・ R v Rodgers ・ R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd ・ R v Ruzic ・ R v Ryan ・ R v S (RD) Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Powley ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Powley ''R. v. Powley'' is a Supreme Court of Canada case defining Métis Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. ==Facts and Procedural History== A Sault Ste. Marie father and son, Steve and Roddy Powley, were charged in 1993 with possession of a moose they had shot out of season and without a licence. The pair pleaded not guilty on the grounds that, as Métis, they had an Aboriginal right to hunt that was unjustly infringed by Ontario game laws. The Ontario Court of Justice agreed and dismissed the charges. The Ontario Attorney General appealed that decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which upheld the acquittals and denied the appeal. The Ontario Attorney General then appealed that decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal which also upheld the acquittals and denied the appeal. Finally, the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a unanimous court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and defined a ten-step test for Métis rights based on modified tests from the previous Indian Aboriginal rights decisions in R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Van der Peet. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Powley」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.