The hunter has a a Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Harvester Identification Card issued by the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs but no hunting licence. The dog owner happens to be carrying a licence and claims exclusive property in the fox. Is the dog owner correct? Why or why not?
What part of this framework did you understand best?
What part did you understand least?
</div>
Compare Locke’s theory of property relations with Henderson’s interpretation of treaty relations. Which seem more plausible or relevant to the context of land relations in the Atlantic region in the mid-18th century?
Background to the common law doctrine of Aboriginal Title in context of settler colonialism
Locke: property in a “state of nature”
Feudal tenure is the “public law” framework for property in land originating in medieval England
Early medieval / Anglo-Saxon England (5th to 11th centuries)
Norman conquest / Battle of Hastings (1066)
</div>
All land “owned” by the king (radical or allodial title)
Privilege of tenure: property held “of the king”
Feudal incidents (personal relations, fealty, obligations)
Subinfeudation (tenants-in-chief, land lords, Quia Emptores 1290)
Restraints on descent alienation
Ownership of a legal interest in land, not ownership of land (e.g. fee simple estate).
How does the common law doctrine of Aboriginal Title “fit” into the structure of feudal land tenure we discussed today? On what assumptions does it depend?