Sabrina Tomarci
Case Citation: R v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282
Key Terms
Indian Act 94. An Indian who (a) has intoxicants in his possession, (b) is intoxicated, or (c) makes or manufactures intoxicants off a reserve, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than ten dollars and not more than fifty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both fine and imprisonment.
Canadian Bill of Rights
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, …
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; ....
Background
Joseph Drybones was found intoxicated at the Old Stope Hotel in Yellowknife, Northwest Territory. He was charged under section 94(b) of the Indian Act which states that an Indian may not be intoxicated outside of their respective reserves. Interestingly, there are no official Indian reserves in the Northwest Territories. Drybones was charged as guilty and later appealed his conviction claiming that under section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which guarantees all individuals equal treatment, his conviction was unfair.
Procedure
Despite Drybones lack of understanding of the English language, he pled guilty and was sentenced to paying a $10.00 fine. Shortly after he acquired a lawyer who appealed his ruling under the claim that the trial was unfair given Drybones did not know English. He was then granted a trial “de novo.” This refers to when a court grants you an entirely new trial with a new tribunal. Originally his lawyer claimed that he was not an Indian and given that fact Drybones could not be charged under s.94(b). This was likely in an attempt to release any discrimination which he knew his client would likely face. When this failed they appealed section 94(b) of the Indian Act given section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Claiming that 94(b) was discriminatory and only towards Indian people, therefore making it unconstitutional. The Crown originally appealed this judgement to The Court of Appeals of the Northwest Territories where the case was then dismissed and proceeded to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada. The council voted six in favour of Dry Bones with 3 not in favour. The court declared section 94(b) as inoperable given it was discriminatory. They applied the notwithstanding clause to repeal this section in 1971.
Laws Applied
The Indian act is supposed to govern the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government. The Canadian Bill of Rights is an Act which intends to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Canadians under federal Parliament, though it can be amended given it was not entrenched into the Constitution.
Conclusion
R v. Drybones sheds light on the inequalities which Indigenous people in Canada face despite the nation's claims of equality. Cases like these are the backbone of Canadian constitutional amendments which have occurred over the past decades. With continuous effort towards dismantling the unfair restrictions which are faced by several minority groups, we can hope to see the nation as we would wish it was.
Link to document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPBBxO_J0yDP4sZboHHIxesH3DcWy5dfdjYMLtaxqEE/edit?usp=sharing
Bibliography
Ontario Justice Education Network. "Equality Rights, The Indian Act, and The Canadian Bill of Rights: R. v. Drybones." Welcome to the Ontario Justice Education Network - OJEN. Last modified November 7, 2023. https://ojen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Drybones-English.pdf.
"The Queen V. Drybones - SCC Cases." Decisions and Resources - SCC Cases. Last modified November 7, 2023. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2722/index.do.
Comments