The following article attempts to summarize the results of a study of Canadian criminal case law materials relating to aboriginals accused over the last hundred years. The goal of this analysis was to ascertain the openness of Canadian state law to certain forms of legal pluralism. The concept of “dialogism» was used to measure the intensity of recognition or application by a central legal order (Canadian criminal law) of values and norms pertaining to another legal order (legal concepts of aboriginal peoples). Analysis of the case law shows Canadian criminal law slowly evolving towards a weak form of legal pluralism. Early decisions by the courts denote an absence of cultural dialogue, with the exception of those of the circuit court in the Northwest Territories. The more recent case law indicates that if courts are reluctant to recognize the relevance of aboriginal values in the matter of jury selection, trial location and criminal liability, they are more and more receptive to legal pluralism on sentencing issues, where a form of power-sharing is possible between judges and native communities.