In R. v. Sparrow (1990) the Supreme Court of Canada took the same approach as those judges in Calder who said that the Nisga’a still had title. They said that unless legislation had a “clear and plain intention” to extinguish Aboriginal rights, it did not have that effect. Applying this test to fisheries legislation, the Court concluded that a century of detailed regulations had not extinguished the Musqueam people’s aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes. This case, however, dealt with aboriginal fishing rights, not rights in land.
Photo Source: https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/r-v-sparrow-press/