Sparrow Test

Aboriginal rights are a delicate yet important part of Canadian history and society. The rights of these Aboriginal people were tested greatly in the Supreme Court of Canada case R vs. Sparrow [1990] 1 S.C. 569. Ronald Edward Sparrow, a member of the Canadian Musqueam band was caught fishing with a drift net longer then the allowed length allowed and was therefore charged for his actions. Sparrow appealed the issue to the courts several times because he believed he was simply exercising his right as an Aboriginal to fish under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled the appeal In favour of Sparrow, who not only gained a victory for himself but for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. As a result of this,
The creation of this test gives a legal realist a greater sense of justification when viewing Legal Aboriginal issues. The Sparrow Test outlines a basic set of criteria to allow the government to decide if a right may be infringed upon. Before this was developed judges would have no comparison to relate to such issues, legal realist are committed to finding the gaps the law system presents. In regards to this, the Sparrow Test development is able to help legal adjudication and its determinacy towards Aboriginal rights. Realists could argue certain cases of indigenous rights pervious to this were a messy affair and not adhered too by any sense of societal means. Moreover, they can see truth in the legal systems uncreative decision making existence, making the Sparrow Test development a positive reinforcement to this flaw. Realists would propose Aboriginal rights evolve over time and therefore Law must evolve alongside this. The development of the Sparrow Test gives importance to these Aboriginal cases and honours the relationship between the government and the First nations community. Legal realists would recognized this as important for there ideology concerning rapid changes society brings to law