Mitchell v MNR
supreme Court of Canada case
Mitchell v MNR [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911, 2001 SCC 331 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The court held that Mitchell's claim to an aboriginal right to import goods across the Canada–US border was invalid as he was unable to present enough evidence showing that the importation was an integral part of the band's distinctive culture.
In 1988, Grand Chief Michael Mitchell, a Mohawk of Akwesasne, attempted to bring goods from the US into Canada. At the border he declared everything that he had purchased in the US but refused to pay any duty on it, claiming that he had an aboriginal right to bring goods across the border.
At trial, the Federal Court agreed with Mitchell and held that there was an aboriginal right to import goods. The decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision, and held that Mitchell was required to pay duty for all of the goods he imported.
The public source identifies “Mitchell v MNR” as supreme Court of Canada case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Mitchell, supreme and Court.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Mitchell v MNR”, the useful work is to connect “supreme Court of Canada case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 22, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q6881469. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2001, 1982 and 1988.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Mitchell v MNR”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Mitchell v MNR primary sources, Mitchell v MNR archive and Mitchell research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Mitchell v MNR”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Mitchell v MNR” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.