1990年加拿大最高法院的『斯帕羅判決』確立原住民族權利之特殊權利性質，其後，加拿大最高法院作成被稱為「凡德皮三部曲」的3則判決，證成原住民族權利的定義、屬性及判斷標準，建立「凡德皮判准」，確認憲法保障之原住民族權利的判斷標準在於構成原住民族獨特文化之不可或缺的、具有核心重要意義的習慣、風俗或傳統，且在與歐洲人接觸之前即已存在。透過原住民族的習慣、風俗或傳統證成原住民族權利，是目前加拿大最高法院的作法，雖然有許多批判，但是透過這個途徑，有一些原住民成功獲得其應有的權利。至於進一步的提升，則有待有關原住民族法律傳統的討論成為現實，以及原住民族自治的充分實踐。

Canadian Supreme Court's decision of R. v. Sparrow (1990) affirmed the sui generis nature of aboriginal rights. Later, the Supreme Court delivered the so-called Van der Peet Trilogy in 1996, which justified the Van der Peet Test on aboriginal right's definition, attribute, and criterion. Under the test, the proponent must establish the centrality of aboriginal right's activity to the precolonial aboriginal culture. By way of examining the historical roots of the challenged practice to determine its centrality to the precolonial indigenous culture and making it cognizable to the imported legal system, the aboriginal practice can then enjoy the status of an ＂existing right＂ under section 35(1) of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the many critiques, a number of aboriginal rights had successfully established. For the advanced development, this choice-of-law rule has to be realized by indigenous legal traditions, and to be implemented through indigenous self-government.