Canadian Aboriginal Rights

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct82% picked this

   Other Ontario courts had previously interpreted “use” to include sale of the land

   Why this is right

   We were looking for this, aboriginal property rights should allow you to sell the land or its resources; it's not just the right to use the land. This definitely supports that idea, because other courts feel that "use" of the land includes the right to sell the land or its resources. The fact that this answer references other Ontario courts makes it even better, because it shows that the provincial court's ruling isn't aligned with how other courts are interpreting the same legal text.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   82%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   The ruling created thousands of jobs by opening the land in question to logging by

   This has nothing to do with making it seem like the provincial court's ruling was wrong, or that aboriginal rights should include sale of the land or its resources.

   2%
3. C

   Weakens11% picked this

   Previous court decisions in Ontario have distinguished the right to use land from the right

   This seems to match the way the provincial court was thinking. The aboriginal group thought their rights included the right to sell the land, but the provincial court said, "No, it's only the right to use the land. That doesn't include selling it." So this answer is saying that previous court decisions have matched the provincial court's decision, in terms of distinguishing right to use from right to sell. If other courts are interpreting this law similarly to how the provincial court did, then that undermines the claim that the provincial court's interpretation of the law was excessively conservative.

   11%
4. D

   No Impact2% picked this

   The ruling prompted aboriginal groups in other provinces to pursue land claims

   This has nothing to do with making it seem like the provincial court's ruling was wrong, or that aboriginal rights should include sale of the land or its resources. We know that aboriginal groups are unhappy with the provincial court's ruling, so it's no surprise that the aboriginal groups would try to appeal it or to seek a satisfactory ruling elsewhere. But the fact that they are still trying to find a court that will side with them doesn't give us any reason to think that the provincial court was wrong. If an entrepreneur was told by one of the investors on Shark Tank that their invention didn't have mass market potential, it doesn't suggest that the investor's assessment was wrong if we say, "The disappointing rejection prompted the entrepreneur to pursue other potential investors".

   2%
5. E

   Weak Impact4% picked this

   Prior to the decision in question, the provincial court had not heard a case concerning

   We might try to say, "This supports the idea that the provincial court's ruling was wrong / too conservative, because it's saying that they had no experience ruling on these cases yet. Naturally, on their first case, they're going to be a little more conservative about how to interpret this law." That's not entirely crazy, but we can't assume a court is likely to make an excessively conservative ruling just because it's their first case dealing with a new law. If we thought the court was likely to make errors in judgment on their first case, they would be just as likely to be excessively liberal. When we compare the impact of (E) to (A), it's clearer with (A) that this provincial court is "out of step" with how other courts are interpreting the law, and it's clear that the provincial court's ruling is more limiting / more conservative / more stingy with what rights it grants.

   4%