R. v. Sparrow
E450349
Aboriginal law case
Canadian constitutional law case
Supreme Court of Canada decision
landmark case
leading case
R. v. Sparrow is a landmark 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision that affirmed and clarified the constitutional protection of Indigenous fishing rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| R. v. Sparrow canonical | 5 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4536546 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: R. v. Sparrow Context triple: [Musqueam people, notableLegalCase, R. v. Sparrow]
-
A.
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision that fundamentally defined and affirmed the nature, scope, and constitutional protection of Aboriginal title in Canada.
-
B.
Meech Wells
Meech Wells is an American hip-hop and R&B record producer best known for his work with West Coast artists, particularly in collaboration with Snoop Dogg.
-
C.
Meech Lake Accord
The Meech Lake Accord was a failed set of Canadian constitutional amendments from the late 1980s that sought to persuade Quebec to formally endorse the Constitution by recognizing it as a "distinct society" and adjusting federal-provincial powers.
-
D.
Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act, 1982
Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act, 1982 are the constitutionally recognized Indigenous peoples of Canada, encompassing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.
-
E.
Crown in Right of Ontario
The Crown in Right of Ontario is the legal embodiment of the Canadian monarch as the head of state for the province of Ontario, forming the basis of its executive, legislative, and judicial authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: R. v. Sparrow Target entity description: R. v. Sparrow is a landmark 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision that affirmed and clarified the constitutional protection of Indigenous fishing rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
-
A.
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia is a landmark 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision that fundamentally defined and affirmed the nature, scope, and constitutional protection of Aboriginal title in Canada.
-
B.
Meech Wells
Meech Wells is an American hip-hop and R&B record producer best known for his work with West Coast artists, particularly in collaboration with Snoop Dogg.
-
C.
Meech Lake Accord
The Meech Lake Accord was a failed set of Canadian constitutional amendments from the late 1980s that sought to persuade Quebec to formally endorse the Constitution by recognizing it as a "distinct society" and adjusting federal-provincial powers.
-
D.
Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act, 1982
Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act, 1982 are the constitutionally recognized Indigenous peoples of Canada, encompassing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.
-
E.
Crown in Right of Ontario
The Crown in Right of Ontario is the legal embodiment of the Canadian monarch as the head of state for the province of Ontario, forming the basis of its executive, legislative, and judicial authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Aboriginal law case
ⓘ
Canadian constitutional law case ⓘ Supreme Court of Canada decision ⓘ landmark case ⓘ leading case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
Aboriginal law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ fisheries law ⓘ |
| citation | [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 ⓘ |
| constitutionalInstrument | Constitution Act, 1982 ⓘ |
| constitutionArticleInterpreted | section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 ⓘ |
| country | Canada ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of Canada ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1990-05-31 ⓘ |
| defendant | Ronald Edward Sparrow ⓘ |
| defendantAffiliation | Musqueam Indian Band ⓘ |
| fullName | R. v. Sparrow ⓘ |
| holding |
conservation is a valid legislative objective that can justify infringement of Aboriginal rights if properly implemented
ⓘ
government regulation can infringe Aboriginal rights only if the infringement is justified ⓘ section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights ⓘ the Crown owes a fiduciary duty to Aboriginal peoples in the regulation of their rights ⓘ the Musqueam Band has an existing Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes ⓘ |
| impact | foundational case for interpretation of section 35 Aboriginal rights in Canada ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal fisheries regulation ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
justification test for infringement of Aboriginal rights
ⓘ
regulation of Indigenous fishing rights ⓘ scope of Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 ⓘ |
| locationOfFacts | British Columbia ⓘ |
| lowerCourt |
British Columbia Court of Appeal
ⓘ
British Columbia Supreme Court ⓘ
linked to:
Supreme Court of British Columbia
|
| party |
Her Majesty The Queen
ⓘ
linked to:
Her Majesty the Queen
Ronald Edward Sparrow ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
R. v. Badger
ⓘ
R. v. Gladstone ⓘ
linked to:
R. v. Nikal
R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd. ⓘ R. v. Nikal ⓘ R. v. Van der Peet ⓘ |
| principleEstablished |
Crown fiduciary obligation in relation to Aboriginal rights
ⓘ
Sparrow test for justification of infringements of Aboriginal rights ⓘ priority of Aboriginal food, social and ceremonial fishing after conservation needs are met ⓘ requirement of consultation with Aboriginal peoples when their rights may be affected ⓘ requirement of minimal impairment of Aboriginal rights ⓘ |
| recognizedRight | Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
Indigenous fishing rights
ⓘ
regulation of salmon fishery ⓘ |
| typeOfRightInvolved | Aboriginal right ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1990 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: R. v. Sparrow Description of subject: R. v. Sparrow is a landmark 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision that affirmed and clarified the constitutional protection of Indigenous fishing rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.