Corbiere and the Queen is a case involving a challenge to the Indian Act that prevented off-reserve band members from voting in Band Council elections. ALST supported the position of the plaintiff that off-reserve band members should have that right. The Court concluded that the Indian Act should be amended to allow for voting by off-reserve band members

R v. B.W.P. involves the interpretation of the sentencing provisions of the Youth Criminal Justce Act. Specifically the case looks at whether a judge can use the principles of general deterrence when sentencing a young person. The case was argued at the Supreme Court on November 10, 2005. A decision is expected in early 2006.

R v. Gladue
Factum of Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto in R v. Gladue

In R v. Gladue the Court interpreted the meaning of s.718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. The section states that when imposing a sentence a court should look at all alternatives to custody paying particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal people. ALST intervened in support of the Aboriginal person who was seeking the benefit of the section. This decision by the Supreme Court led to the creation of the Gladue Court - an initiative that ALST has been very much a part of

R v. Golden was a challenge to the general police policy of strip searching all accused persons after arrest. ALST has had many clients who have been strip searched by the police for no reason at all and so intervened in the case in support of the defendant. The Court ruled that the police could not strip search accused persons simply as a matter of routine policy.

Hill was a lawsuit brought by an Aboriginal person who was wrongfully convicted of a bank robbery. He sued the Hamilton Police. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the police could be sued for negligent investigation. ALST supported Mr. Hill and placed the argument in the broader context of Aboriginal over-representation. The Court ruled that police could be sued for wrongful investigation but that Mr. Hill could not succeed in his case as teh facts did not support a conclusion that there was a negligent investigation.

R v. Powley
Factum of Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto in R. v. Powley

R v. Powley is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to set out the Aboriginal rights of the Metis people. The Supreme Court found in favour of the Powleys that they had an Aboriginal right to hunt moose in Sault Ste. Marie and did not require a licence from the province.

R v. Sauve was a challenge to the Canadian Elections Act which denied all inmates in federal penitentiaries the right to vote in federal elections. ALST intervened in the case to support the inmates seeking the right to vote and to provide the Court with context for how these provisions impact Aborignal inmates specifically. The Court ruled that the law violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says that all Canadian citizens have the right to vote.

R v. Wells was a follow-up case to Gladue. The case centred on the appropriateness of using a conditional sentence - a sentence where a person who would otherwise be sent to jail is given the opportunity to serve the sentence out of custody - for an Aboriginal offender charged with sexual offence. ALST intervened to argue for a broad interpretation of the appropriateness of conditional sentences. In the specific circumstances of the case, the Court did not think a conditional sentence was appropriate but did not rule out such sentences in other cases.

R v. Williams involved an Aboriginal accused person who wished to ask potential jurors whether their ability to judge the case would be influenced by the fact that he was Aboriginal and the alleged victim was non-Aboriginal. ALST intervened in support of his application. The Court ruled that asking these questions to potential jurors was appropriate.

R v. Powley

R v. Powley is the first case in Ontario to set out the nature of the Aboriginal rights of Metis people. ALST intervened in support of the defendants who stated that they had an Aboriginal right to hunt moose in Sault Ste. Marie and did not require a licence from the province. The Ontario Court of Appeal found in favour of the defendants. The Ontario government appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada and it was heard in March 2003. ALST intervened in the case at the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case can be found above.