https://exhibits.library.utoronto.ca/items/browse?tags=common+law&sort_field=Dublin+Core%2CTitle&output=atom2024-03-28T17:41:23-04:00Omekahttps://exhibits.library.utoronto.ca/items/show/2422Connolly v. Woolrich et al. (1867), 17 R.J.R.Q. 75]]>Connolly v. Woolrich et al. , an important 1867 case. This case considered the legality of a marriage between a man employed by the Hudson Bay and an indigenous woman. The wedding was not performed by a priest, but rather, in accordance with indigenous traditions. The progeny of this relationship later made claim to the man’s estate upon his death; however, the man had married once again in a recognized institution upon his retirement. His widow claimed the previous marriage was invalid and the son was entitled to nothing. Monk J. disagreed. He reasoned that we must not abrogate indigenous traditions in favour of our own without good reason; rather, we ought to consider such traditions alongside our own legal traditions. Ultimately, Monk J. went on the record to say that indigenous rights and customs mattered, to some degree, as much as those of the European settlers.]]>2023-11-03T14:24:09-04:00
Title
Excerpts from Connolly v. Woolrich et al. (1867), 17 R.J.R.Q. 75
Subject
Canada
common law
civil law
Indigenous law
legal systems
Description
These files contain excerpts from Connolly v. Woolrich et al. , an important 1867 case. This case considered the legality of a marriage between a man employed by the Hudson Bay and an indigenous woman. The wedding was not performed by a priest, but rather, in accordance with indigenous traditions. The progeny of this relationship later made claim to the man’s estate upon his death; however, the man had married once again in a recognized institution upon his retirement. His widow claimed the previous marriage was invalid and the son was entitled to nothing. Monk J. disagreed. He reasoned that we must not abrogate indigenous traditions in favour of our own without good reason; rather, we ought to consider such traditions alongside our own legal traditions. Ultimately, Monk J. went on the record to say that indigenous rights and customs mattered, to some degree, as much as those of the European settlers.
Creator
Quebec Superior Court per Monk J
Source
Connolly v. Woolrich et al. (1867), 17 R.J.R.Q. 75
This web page provides background information about the common law tradition, the civil law tradition, Aboriginal treaty rights, how Parliament makes laws, and the nature of regulations.