That occupancy in no way affected his right to lawful possession and the court is not being now asked to alter or vary that right as it was asked in the Derrickson case. It by implication lawfully permits such occupancy by another band member. The husband as well as his wife and children are all band members and thus are all lawfully permitted to occupy the lands. The Act thus recognizes the distinction between lawful possession and the right to occupy. I think the distinction too fine.
Occupation is part of possession.
This case is indistinguishable from Derrickson. To hold otherwise would mean that the husband by virtue of his Certificate of Possession would be entitled to possession and consequently to occupation of the family residence while the wife, by an order made under the Family Relations Act would be entitled to interim exclusive occupancy of the same residence. See Derrickson v. Derrickson. The provisions of s. 77 of the Family Relations Act are inapplicable to a family residence located on land in an Indian Reserve. I would dismiss the appeal.