Explain how the Supreme Court of Canada later clarified the initial Marshall ruling.
A clarification on the ruling, released in November of the same year and known as Marshall2, stated that the federal government could still regulate Indigenous hunting and fishing rights if there were concerns about conservation, as long as it consulted with the First Nation and could justify its concerns. However, the Supreme Court failed at the time to clearly define "moderate livelihood".
Answers
Answer:
On 17 November 1999, the Supreme Court clarified its ruling in what became known as Marshall II. The court stated that Indigenous treaty rights were not unlimited. Indigenous fishing activities can be regulated based on conservation concerns or other important public objectives.
Explanation:
pls mark me as brainliest
The Marshall case is a landmark ruling in Indigenous treaty rights in Canada. The case centres on Donald Marshall Jr., a Mi’kmaq man from Membertou, Nova Scotia. In August 1993, Marshall caught and sold 210 kg of eel with an illegal net and without a licence during closed-season times. He was arrested after being charged under the federal Fisheries Act and the Maritime Provinces Fishery Regulations. In Marshall’s court case, R. v. Marshall, he was found guilty on all three charges in provincial court (1996) and appeals court (1997). The Supreme Court of Canada reversed Marshall’s convictions in September 1999.
Hope it's helps you.. @kay❤️