Stambovsky v. Ackley [...] is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent"). The dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine of "caveat emptor" should be strictly applied and would affirm the trial court's dismissal of all of the actions. Displeased by the majority's basis for its holding, the dissent said, "Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court." The case generated considerable publicity and area real estate
Paulette Caveat signatories did not believe that Treaty No. 8 and No. 11 extinguished their Aboriginal rights to the land and that the Treaties were unfulfilled. Justice Morrow agreed with these witnesses and ruled that the Chiefs had established a case for claiming Aboriginal rights sufficiently to warrant the filing of a caveat. Although the ability to register the caveat was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Morrow's findings in respect to Aboriginal rights were not overturned. The "Paulette" case resulted in the initiation of the Dene/Metis comprehensive land claim process. The "Paulette" and "Calder" cases prompted the Government of