OK - I'll bite...
MISLEADING. Most of Canada is covered by Treaty whereas most of BC is not. The issue(s) in the rest of Canada are whether or not Treaties are being followed, in BC it is much more complicated.
FALSE. A Nation is a culturally distinct group of people - think the Basques in Spain or the Scots in England. There is no "First Nation" Nation - there are individual Nations like the Haida. A Nation is completely separate from a State (or country) - a Nation is homogenous, a country is not necessarily so. England is a State of which Scotland is a part.
There is legal precedent where a First Nation is granted specific powers within the State - Nunavut and Haida Gwaii are probably the two best examples within Canada. They are NOT separate states and even when the courts point to "unceded territory" (the legal definition, not the current popular usage amongst First Nations apologists) they are quick to affirm that this is still within the laws of Canada.
MISLEADING. The majority (but not all) First Nations, under specific Treaties and Canadian Laws, have the right to hunt and fish FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES and ONLY IN SPECIFIC AREAS. Neither First Nations nor Canadians have a specific right to resources (resource as a term includes such things as mineral rights).
FALSE and MISLEADING. As noted above, your definition of resources is incorrect. Also as noted above the right to hunt/fish is often tied to a specific need (e.g. cultural & ceremonial reasons) and location. First Nations "rights" have a "cascading effect" and more importantly it is still the relevant Canadian governmental department that decides when those rights can be infringed.
NOPE. The courts act on what is implemented by Government (e.g. signed Treaties, the Charter, etc.) as much as many people point to the Court being activist - they still base their decisions in part on existing law.
The other thing Courts and Governments look at is the social environment and social justice (this has gone on forever - e.g. women getting the vote). This means Governments and Courts often lag what is happening within our social fabric (gay rights). In the case of First Nations look at something like the "Salish Sea" - there is no such thing! It is not a Sea! It was never called "Salish"! It was never seen as "property" of the Salish people! But it has entered our nomenclature. There are now two options: it can go from just being nomenclature to being "official" - maps being changed, etc. or society can change again and we can go back to referring to the Georgia Straight or come up with an entirely new name.
How soon until the majority has some First Nations blood, or on the opposite end a "blood quantum" to be defined as First Nations is re-introduced (did you know in the school system if you "identify" as First Nations you are considered First Nations?)
I have now eaten the bait I took.