This famous case, known as Regina v. Sparrow, started when Ronald Sparrow, a Musqueam, was charged with contravening federal regulations while fishing in the lower Fraser River with a driftnet longer than permitted.

Sparrow appealed his conviction based on the argument that the restriction on the net length was invalid because it was consistent with Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982"the section that recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Sparrow case was the first in which the Supreme Court of Canada was called onto interpret what Section 35 actually means. In overturning Sparrow,s conviction, the court ruled that the Constitution Act provides "a strong measure of protection for aboriginal rights. Any proposed regulations that infringe on the exercise of those rights must be justified. The court ruled that:

• Aboriginal and treaty rights are capable of evolving over time and must be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner;
• Governments must regulate existing aboriginal rights only for a compelling and substantial objective such as the conservation and management of the resource; and
• After conservation goals are met, aboriginal people must be given priority to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

In the Sparrow decision the Supreme Court of Canada thus re-affirmed the principle that aboriginal rights contained in the Canadian Constitution must be given a generous and liberal interpretation.