Which test is applied in R v Sparrow to limit an aboriginal right?

The test applied in R v Sparrow to limit an Aboriginal right is commonly referred to as the Sparrow test. This case, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990, established a specific framework for determining whether government actions infringe upon Aboriginal rights.

In Sparrow, the Supreme Court articulated criteria that must be met for any limitation of an Aboriginal right to be justified. These include the need for the government to show that the restriction is aimed at a valid legislative goal and that it is in line with the honour of the Crown. The court emphasized the importance of the protection of Aboriginal rights as part of reconciliation between the Crown and Indigenous peoples.

The other options do not represent the framework established in R v Sparrow. The balance test is more general and not specifically tied to Aboriginal rights. The Gladstone test, while relevant in discussions of Aboriginal fishing rights, refers to a different context related to economic benefits from these rights. The consultation test typically refers to obligations of the government to consult with Indigenous peoples on matters affecting their rights, but it is not the specific framework used to assess limitations to rights set out in the Sparrow case.

Thus, the Sparrow test is recognized specifically for its role in establishing how to evaluate and potentially limit Aboriginal rights, making it the appropriate