| |
| | Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-06) |
 | | He dismissed the action against Canada, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for ownership and jurisdiction and for aboriginal rights in the territory, granted a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to use unoccupied or vacant land subject to the general law of the province, dismissed the claim for damages and dismissed the province's counterclaim. |
 | | Then, too, appellate courts, absent a palpable and overriding error, should not substitute their own findings of fact even when the trial judge misapprehended the law which was applied to those facts. |
 | | While the Court of Appeal is seized with the duty of re-examining the evidence in order to be satisfied that no such error occurred, it is not, in my view, a part of its function to substitute its assessment of the balance of probability for the findings of the judge who presided at the trial. |
| www.lexum.umontreal.ca /csc-scc/en/pub/1997/vol3/html/1997scr3_1010.html (17648 words) |
|