Indian Act
Writing for the court, Justice Morrow concluded that on April 8, 1967, Drybones was indeed an Indian within the meaning of the "Indian Act", and that he was intoxicated off a reserve in contravention of section 94(b) of the "Indian Act". However, Morrow held that Section 94(b) of the "Indian Act" is negated because it impermissibly violates section 1(b) of the "Canadian Bill of Rights".