Category Archives: Case Watch

Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd v Huson, 2019 BCSC 2264

Posted on by

Interlocutory injunction and enforcement order granted. The defendants are restrained from preventing access to key service roads used by the plaintiff, Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The plaintiff, Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TC Energy Corporation (formerly known as TransCanada Pipelines Ltd). The plaintiff obtained all of the necessary provincial permits and authorizations to commence construction of a natural gas pipeline [the “Pipeline Project”]. Over a period of several years beginning in 2012, the defendants set up the Bridge Blockade on the Morice West Forest Service Road [“FSR”]. The defendants have said publicly that one of the main purposes of the Bridge Blockade was to prevent industrial projects, including the Pipeline Project, from being constructed in Unist’ot’en traditional territories. In 2018, the Court granted an interim injunction enjoining the defendants from blockading the FSR. Blockading persisted, however, at another access point along the road, which resulted in the Court varying the interim injunction order to include all of the FSR.

The Pipeline Project is a major undertaking, which the plaintiff contends will generate benefits for contractors and employees of the plaintiff, First Nations along the pipeline route, local communities, and the Province of British Columbia. The defendants assert that the Wet’suwet’en people, as represented by their traditional governance structures, have not given permission to the plaintiff to enter their traditional unceded territories. The defendants assert that they were at all times acting in accordance with Wet’suwet’en law and with proper authority. The Wet’suwet’en people have both hereditary and Indian Act band council governance systems and there is dispute over the extent of their respective jurisdictions.

The Environmental Assessment Office issued to the plaintiff a Section 11 Order that identified the Aboriginal groups with whom the plaintiff and the Province of British Columbia were required to consult regarding the Pipeline Project. The plaintiff engaged in consultation with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs through the Office of the Wet’suwet’en over a number of years. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en expressed opposition to the project on behalf of 12 of the 13 Wet’suwet’en Houses. Offers by the plaintiff to negotiate agreements with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en have not been accepted.

The plaintiff has entered into community and benefit agreements with all five Wet’suwet’en elected Bands. The long-term financial benefits to those, and 20 other Indigenous Bands, may exceed $338 million cumulatively over the life of the Pipeline Project. The elected Band councils assert that the reluctance of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en to enter into project agreements placed responsibility on the Band councils to negotiate agreements to ensure that the Wet’suwet’en people as a whole would receive benefits from Pipeline Project. This appears to have resulted in considerable tension between the Office of the Wet’suwet’en and the elected Band councils.

The Court found that the reconciliation of the common law with Indigenous legal perspectives is still in its infancy (Beaver v Hill, 2018 ONCA 816 [“Beaver”]). Indigenous customary laws generally do not become an effectual part of Canadian common law until there is some means or process by which they are recognized. This can be through its incorporation into treaties, court declarations, such as Aboriginal title or rights jurisprudence, or statutory provisions (Alderville First Nation v Canada, 2014 FC 747). There has been no process by which Wet’suwet’en customary laws have been recognized in this manner. The Aboriginal title claims of the Wet’suwet’en people have yet to be resolved either by negotiation or litigation. While Wet’suwet’en customary laws clearly exist on their own independent footing, they are not recognized as being an effectual part of Canadian law. Indigenous laws may, however, be admissible as fact evidence of the Indigenous legal perspective. It is for this purpose that evidence of Wet’suwet’en customary laws has been considered relevant in this case.

There is significant conflict amongst members of the Wet’suwet’en nation regarding construction of the Pipeline Project. The Unist’ot’en, the Wet’suwet’en Matrilineal Coalition, the Gidumt’en, the Sovereign Likhts’amisyu and the Tsayu Land Defenders all appear to operate outside the traditional governance structures of the Wet’suwet’en, although they each assert through various means their own authority to apply and enforce Indigenous laws and customs. It is difficult for the Court to reach any conclusions about the Indigenous legal perspective. Based on the evidence, the defendants are posing significant constitutional questions and asking this Court to decide those issues in the context of the injunction application with little or no factual matrix. This is not the venue for that analysis and those are issues that must be determined at trial.

The defendants have chosen to engage in illegal activities to voice their opposition to the Pipeline Project rather than to challenge it through legal means, which is not condoned. At its heart, the defendants’ argument is that the Province of British Columbia was not authorized to grant permits and authorizations to the plaintiff to construct the Pipeline Project on Wet’suwet’en traditional territory without the specific authorization from the hereditary chiefs. Rather than seeking accommodation of Wet’suwet’en legal perspectives, as suggested by their counsel, the defendants are seeking to exclude the application of British Columbia law within Wet’suwet’en territory, which is something that Canadian law will not entertain (Beaver).

Such “self-help” remedies are not condoned anywhere in Canadian law, and they undermine the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that such conduct amounts to a repudiation of the mutual obligation of Aboriginal groups and the Crown to consult in good faith (Behn v Moulton Contracting Ltd, 2013 SCC 261).

All three branches of the test for an interlocutory injunction are satisfied. Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy. In the Court’s view, it is just and equitable that an injunction order be granted and that this is an appropriate case to include enforcement provisions within the injunction order. The public needs to be informed of the consequences of non-compliance with an injunction order (West Fraser Mills v Members of Lax Kw’Alaams, 2004 BCSC 815).

Note: Benjamin Ralston is a sessional lecturer at the College of Law and a researcher at the Indigenous Law Centre. We are proud to acknowledge his contribution as co-counsel for the defendants in this case.

R v Matchee, 2019 ABCA 251

Posted on by
Reply

There were errors of law present in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the offender’s Gladue factors and moral blameworthiness. The sentence has been reassessed.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

Mr. Matchee appealed his seven-year custodial sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge erred by not giving effect to Gladue factors. The sentencing judge’s desire to avoid the appearance of a “race-based discount” was demonstrated by an error of law that Gladue factors do not apply to serious offences – Gladue factors apply to all offences. There was a failure to recognize a connection between the offender’s mother and grandmother’s attendance at residential schools and his current circumstances. In turn, Mr. Matchee’s mother’s substance abuse led to his eventual placement in foster care and abuses suffered there during the first 10 years of his life. The sentencing judge made an error to deny the link. Lastly, the view of any community on what is an appropriate sentence is not an animating principle of sentencing law in Canada – to the extent these comments impacted the sentence, this was an error. Due to these reasons, sentencing must be assessed again.

The harm to society in the undermining of people’s security and safety in their homes, as well as the harm to the victim, is significant in assessing the gravity of the offence. Mr. Matchee had many opportunities to leave but chose not to. He was on probation at the time of the offense and has a long-related record. The pre-sentencing report indicated a failure to take responsibility for his actions or has not taken any positive steps to try to address the underlying issues that have been identified. The factors identified above, in particular the lack of any stable home until 10 years of age, sexual and physical abuse, no meaningful connection with his mother or father, an interrupted connection with his Aboriginal culture, lack of education and employment, diminish his blameworthiness for the current offences.

Taking into account the errors in the application of Gladue factors and the inadequate assessment of Mr. Matchee’s moral blameworthiness, a fit sentence for this offender and these offences is a period of six years incarceration. The other sentences and ancillary orders are unchanged. The net sentence, after the deduction of three years 7.5 months credit for pre-sentence custody, is two years 4.5 months.

 

R v Georgekish, 2019 QCCQ 2341

Posted on by
Reply

After weighing the sentencing principles with information provided by a Pre-Sentence Report and a Gladue Report, it was determined that deterrence and denunciation should heavily shape a fit sentence due to the gravity of the offence.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The offender was intercepted by police on the highway in possession of a large quantity of cocaine she was sent to purchase with money from her sister, before she got back to her home community where she intended to sell it. The offender plead guilty and at the time of the offence, she only had a few prior convictions. She is a member of the Cree Nation and a mother of six children. The Court ordered a Gladue Report to be written in which it was determined that both her parents attended residential schools, and was the victim of years of neglect, violence and abuse. The offender suffered with addictions throughout her life starting at a young age, and she was placed in a youth protection program for multiple years away from her family. She had lost a child the year prior to the offence and had not received any grievance support or services.

The Court considered multiple aggravating factors such as the quantity of drugs the accused had in possession, the nature of the drugs, the risk of reoffending, past convictions, the lack of empathy and to take responsibility, but also the vulnerability of the community where the drugs were to be sold. The Court also considered the mitigating circumstances such as the guilty plea, the offender’s collaboration with the police, the crime being one transaction, and the historical and systemic factors as an Aboriginal offender. With these considerations in mind, the Court sentenced the offender to a 20-month detention sentence and a 3-year supervised probation.

Johnson v Fishing Lake Métis Settlement, 2020 ABCA 17

Posted on by
Reply

Application denied. The stringent test for seeking advance costs in public-interest litigation was not met.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The applicants are not Métis, but have lived their entire lives on the land of an estate that was given to a Métis land trustee. They wish to appeal the Fishing Lake Métis Settlement Council’s decision that was confirmed by the Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal.

The principle in advance-costs cases normally involves the unsuccessful party in an action being ordered to pay all or part of the successful party’s costs. They are adverse in interest in specific court proceedings. Advance-costs order may only be granted against a person who is adverse in interest to the applicant in the proceedings to which the applicant is a party. Such an order cannot be made against the Métis Settlement General Council and the Registrar. The Fishing Lake Métis Settlement and the applicants are adverse in interest and may be the subject of an advanced-cost order. This order, however, should be made only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. There is a stringent test with three aspects for an order of advanced costs, but even if they are met, it is still in the Court’s discretion to grant it: 1) the party genuinely cannot afford to pay for the litigation, and no other realistic option exists for bringing the issues to trial; 2) the claim to be adjudicated is prima facie meritorious; and 3) the issues raised transcend the individual interests of the particular litigant, are of public importance, and have not been resolved in previous cases (British Columbia v Okanagan Indian Band, [2004] 1 CNLR 7; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada, [2000] 2 SCR 1120).

Applications for advance-costs orders should not become routine applications. Legislators, and not judges, should, as a rule, decide how to spend public monies. At its heart, this case concerns trusteeship for one individual plot of land and presents no issues of special significance to the community.

 

Gitxaala Nation v Wolverine Terminals ULC et al, 2020 FC 382

Posted on by
Reply

Motion dismissed. The Metlakatla First Nation and Lax Kw’alaams should not be joined as respondents or interveners in the Gitxaala Nation’s underlying application for judicial review.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

Wolverine Terminals ULC, has proposed to construct and operate the Prince Rupert Marine Fuels Service Project [“Project”] in the Port of Prince Rupert. The Project is a floating refuelling station intended for refuelling vessels calling in the Port. It is located on federal lands and is subject to a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act [“CEAA”]. Under the CEAA, the Prince Rupert Port Authority and Transport Canada [“Federal Authorities”] could not enable the Project to proceed unless a determination was made that the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. As part of its evaluation process, the Federal Authorities consulted the six First Nation communities with asserted rights and interests within the Project area regarding potential environmental effects that included the Gitxaala Nation [“Gitxaala”], Metlakatla First Nation, Lax Kw’alaams, Gitga’at First Nation, Kitsumkalum, and Kitselas.

In the underlying application for judicial review [“Application”], Gitxaala challenges the decision of the Federal Authorities that the Project will not cause significant adverse environmental effects pursuant to the CEAA, and that the Crown’s obligation to consult with respect to the Project has been fulfilled [“Decision”]. The Metlakatla First Nation and Lax Kw’alaams [“Moving First Nations”] have brought a motion for an order to allow them to be joined as party respondents in the Application. In the alternative, they seek an order to allow them to jointly intervene. This motion is dismissed.

If the Moving First Nations had a direct interest in quashing the Decision that was actually made, they could and should have asserted it by bringing their own application for judicial review on a timely basis. It would be an “impermissible end-run” for them to join the proceedings, in substance as co-applicants, well after the limitation period for applying has passed (Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (AG), 2017 FCA 102).

The Court is not persuaded that the relief sought, if granted, will inevitably impose legal obligations on the Moving First Nations to re-engage in the consultation process. For example, if the Decision is set aside on the narrow basis that the Federal Authorities failed to adequately consult with Gitxaala, due to unique gaps or inadequacies in the specific consultation process undertaken with Gitxaala, it does not inevitably follow that the Federal Authorities will be required to also re-consult with the other five First Nation communities with asserted rights and interests within the Project area. Even if the relief sought by Gitxaala would require the Federal Authorities to re-engage with the Moving First Nations, the Court is not satisfied that the Moving First Nations would be directly affected by the relief sought in the Application.

The Moving First Nations argue that the relief sought will adversely and directly affect their legal rights by causing them to become legally obligated to participate in a more onerous statutory and consultative process, and incur additional time and expense to re-engage with the Federal Authorities. They rely on the legal principle of a reciprocal duty on First Nations to consult with the Crown in good faith and they cannot, by their conduct, place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the consultation process (Ahousaht First Nation v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), [2008] 3 CNLR 67).

The reciprocal duty imposed on First Nations is significantly different in nature from the duty imposed on the Crown to consult with First Nations. The Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations gives rise to co-extensive right in First Nations to be consulted, and the breach of which is actionable in the Courts. The same cannot be said of the reciprocal duty on First Nations to engage in consultation with the Crown. Unlike the Crown’s duty to consult, the reciprocal duty imposed on First Nations is not an enforceable legal obligation.

The Moving First Nations have not satisfied the Court that their participation as respondents is necessary to determine the adequacy of Gitxaala’s consultation process, or demonstrated how this issue cannot be effectively and completely settled unless they are made respondents on the Application (Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) v Shubenacadie Indian Band, 2002 FCA 509).

As for being added as intervenors, acting under the guise of having a different perspective, an intervener cannot adduce fresh evidence or make submissions that are in reality fresh evidence (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Ishaq, 2015 FCA 151). A proposed intervener must rely on the same evidence in the record that others are relying upon and focus on how they can assist the Court’s determination of the existing proceedings. The Moving First Nations’ proposed position appears to be an expansion of the issues raised in the existing Application. If they intend to argue, in effect, that Gitxaala has no valid asserted claim to the potential existence of Aboriginal title or rights in the project area, the corollary to that argument would be that no duty to consult arose. Gitxaala does not challenge the Decision based on any such finding, but rather on the basis that the Federal Authorities failed to adequately consult with Gitxaala. While the Moving First Nations assert that their participation will assist, it is the Court’s view they have not discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate how it will assist (Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236).

Peepeetch v R, 2019 SKQB 132

Posted on by
Reply

Application granted for a publicly-funded Gladue report. A Gladue report, however, is not required on every occasion on which an Indigenous offender is being sentenced and a full Gladue report is not the only possible or appropriate source of such information.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The applicant was convicted after a trial on charges of impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample. During the trial, he also pled guilty to a charge of possession of brass knuckles, a prohibited weapon. Following the trial, sentencing was adjourned so that a Pre-Sentence Report [PSR] could be prepared. Since the applicant is of Aboriginal heritage, the court directed that the report should contain information, such as Gladue factors (R v Gladue, [1999] 2 CNLR 252; R v Ipeelee, [2012] 2 CNLR 218), particular to Mr. Peepeetch’s circumstances as the Gladue analysis is mandated by the Criminal Code. The applicant’s counsel submitted an application for a publicly-funded Gladue report as the applicant did not have the resources to cover the costs himself.

It was determined that when evaluating whether a publicly-funded Gladue report should be ordered, the following parameters must be met: i) the assistance of the Gladue report must be essential to the judge discharging their judicial function in the case at hand; and (ii) the authority to order for the preparation of Gladue reports should be used sparingly and with caution, in response to specific and exceptional circumstances (Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43; R v Sand, 2019 SKQB 18). Such circumstances exist where a PSR prepared by a probation officer is not capable of providing the information necessary to conduct the proper analysis under ss. 718.2(e), and there is no other effective method of obtaining the necessary information and bringing it before the court in a timely fashion.

When deciding if a publicly-funded Gladue report was appropriate in this case, the court considered a number of factors including the nature of the analysis called for by ss 718.2(e), the sufficiency of the information provided in the current PSR, and if that report is lacking the availability and likely effectiveness of other measures that may be taken to address the deficiencies. Further, the court decided that a Gladue report is not required on every occasion on which an Indigenous offender is being sentenced and a full Gladue report is not the only possible, nor the only appropriate source of such information. Whether or not such a report is required is based on the context of the situation. It is the duty of the sentencing judge to ensure that the information they receive is relevant and necessary for such analysis. Overall, it was determined that the information contained in the PSR report was not sufficient for the court to carry out its judicial function in sentencing the applicant and thus, a publicly-funded Gladue report was ordered.

R v McGinn, 2019 ONSC 4499

Posted on by
Reply

Joint submission for sentencing granted. After considering the Gladue report and at the offender’s request, part of the sentence will be spent in the penitentiary to take advantage of programming specific to Aboriginal offenders.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

After a search of his vehicle, the offender was arrested for drugs and weapons offences. The nature of the drugs involved in this case, are highly addictive substances and this was an aggravating factor. The offender also had a lengthy criminal record, which is reflective of an individual with a substance abuse problem.

The mitigating factors included a guilty plea, as well he expressed insight into his problems. Drug and alcohol abuse, as well as suicide and mistreatment within his family were present in his experiences as a child. His childhood and adolescence were traumatic for reasons that were not of his making. The drug abuse that he fell into has contributed to his involvement within the criminal justice system. The offender recognized that drug addiction had led him down a bad path. His paternal grandparents remain supportive of him and are willing to have him live with them on his release from jail.

The offender’s Aboriginal background no doubt had an impact on him but he appears to have benefitted from involvement in programs for Aboriginal offenders while in custody. The joint submission was accepted, modified slightly to accord with the offender’s request to be housed in the penitentiary to take advantage of programming. The offender was sentenced to three years and nine months in jail, less days spent in presentence custody.

Siksika Health Services v Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2019 ABCA 494

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in denying judicial review and affirming the decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board in accepting jurisdiction over labour relations issues involving the parties.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The appellant [“Employer”] appeals the chambers judge’s decision denying judicial review and affirming the decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board to accept jurisdiction over labour relations issues involving the parties.

The specific operation of Siksika Emergency Medical Services [“SEMS”] is governed by an agreement between the Employer and Alberta Health Services, the provincial health authority. SEMS provides emergency medical services based in the First Nation in accordance with provincial regulation in return for monthly provincial payments. The Employer is also able to direct bill patients for services. The agreement between Alberta Health Services and Siksika Health Services Corporation [“Agreement”] includes the following policy and interpretive statement: “The parties acknowledge the historical and contemporary importance of the treaties to the relationship between the Crown, Canada and Siksika Nation. It is intended that nothing in this Agreement shall have the effect of, or be interpreted as, limiting or expanding any fiduciary relationship between Canada and the First Nations people.”

The respondent [“Union”] was not a party to the Agreement but the Union did not challenge this background philosophy. In this respect, both Canada and the province are expected to live up to the honour of the Crown in their dealings with Treaty and Aboriginal rights. The Union sought certification as the bargaining agent for all ambulance attendants employed with SEMS.

The Employer takes the position that all of the workers in SEMS and under its authority are performing tasks which amount to carrying out a federal undertaking respecting the supply of health and medical services to the people covered by the Treaty and to the First Nation. As such, the Employer argues that it is a federally regulated employer and any labour matters should be dealt with under federal rather than provincial legislation. The Board and the chambers judge had found otherwise.

The role of this Court is to step into the shoes of the chambers judge when it comes to reviewing the decision of the Board (Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36). A court must first apply the functional test to examine the nature, operations and habitual activities of the entity to see if it is a federal undertaking. If so, its labour relations will be federally regulated. Only if this inquiry is inconclusive should a court proceed to an examination of whether provincial regulation of the entity’s labour relations would impair the core of the federal head of power at issue (NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees’ Union, [2010] 4 CNLR 284 [“NIL/TU,O”]).

The chambers judge concluded that the functional analysis in NIL/TU,O did not support the Employer’s position and dismissed the application for judicial review. It was concluded that the Board correctly found that the presumption of provincial regulation of labour relations was not rebutted in this case and that the Board correctly determined it had jurisdiction over the Union’s certification application.

The Employer argues that because the Indian Act included certain provisions related to the medical and health services for the First Nation, then Parliament had made “provision” for the subject of medical and health services for the First Nation. The Employer said the duty of Canada to provide medical and health services to the First Nation could in part be derived from the “medicine chest” reference in Treaty No 6. That concept has evidently been accepted by Canada as influencing the promises to “take care of you” in the development of Treaty No 7 governing the lands in Alberta where this First Nation is located. The Employer referred to the language of Treaty No 7, which attracts a liberal reading in relation to the promises made to Aboriginal people as re-affirmed by s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Court’s role on this appeal of a judicial review decision is restricted to determining whether the chambers judge erred and whether the Board erred in taking jurisdiction to the extent that it did so. This Court will not express any opinion beyond a legality determination respecting what the Board did, let alone express any policy perspective on any aspect of the ongoing effort to achieve social and legal reconciliation of Canadian society with Indigenous peoples.

The Court found no error in the chambers judge conclusion that the Employer’s position was without merit after applying the functional analysis in NIL/TU,O. Funding by Canada alone would not constitute direction of the work being done. The Agreement sets standards and links the service to compliance with laws and guidance applicable otherwise to similar medical and health services in Alberta.

Application of the functional test to the facts found here does not lead to the conclusion that SEMS is a federal undertaking under NIL/TU,O. Section 88 of the Indian Act extends provincial laws to Indians ex proprio vigore except to the extent those laws impair “the status and rights of Indians” (NIL/TU,O). The provision of medical and health services to members of the First Nation arises from their position as human beings, not from any specific ethnicity. While the duty of Canada to Aboriginal people is more general, the specific topic of medical and health services for Indigenous peoples is to their benefit as people living in Alberta. The Employer has not shown that the application of provincial labour relations laws to the SEMS work force impairs in any serious sense the “status or rights of Indians”.

Maliseet Grand Council et al v New Brunswick et al, 2019 NBQB 198

Posted on by
Reply

Motion granted. The two applications for judicial review are dismissed. The applicants have not established standing. Judicial reviews are not an appropriate forum for how the dispute regarding s 35 Aboriginal rights is framed.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

In a bid to enhance winter tourism in northern New Brunswick, the Province decided to improve the snowmobile trail system, by proceeding with the development of a snowmobile grooming hub in 2015 at Mount Carleton Park. The two judicial review applications arose in the context of this decision made by the Province. The initial judicial review focused on whether the Province’s decision to develop the grooming hub was in violation of the Province’s Parks Act and to first conduct an environmental impact assessment. The second judicial review application challenged the Province’s decision to exempt work on, and the replacement of, two bridges from a subsequently conducted environmental impact assessment. In addition, all of the judicial review applicants alleged a breach of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. These lands were, according to the judicial review applicants, never ceded by treaty.

Central to this dispute is the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26, the so-called Peace and Friendship Treaty. The Mascarene Treaty represented a negotiated end to the Dummer’s War between the British and the Wabanaki Confederacy. The Eastern Wabanaki Confederacy are a confederation of First Nation and Native American people from (present day) Eastern Canada and the State of Maine, USA. The Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26 was signed by the numerous traditional chiefs of the Eastern Wabanaki Confederacy. This included traditional chiefs of the Wolastoqewiyik (Maliseet) peoples located in present day New Brunswick. The Wabanaki Confederacy is said to also be in the process of “being rebuilt”.

Having carefully considered the substantive submissions of the parties and having reviewed all of the numerous authorities in the context of both Aboriginal and Treaty rights litigation across Canada, the Court concluded that the Province’s motion to dismiss the two applications for judicial review will succeed. It was determined the applicants on judicial review have not established standing, which is fatal to both judicial reviews. As well, judicial reviews are not an appropriate forum to determine the existence of an Aboriginal section 35 rights-bearing collective.

Counsel for the judicial review applicants acknowledges these to be unique circumstances, however, it does not require this Court to adopt unique and novel legal constructs. “Aboriginal rights exist within the general legal system of Canada” (R v Van der Peet, [1996] 4 CNLR 177 [R v Van der Peet]). There is ample and longstanding authoritative support for the notion that both Aboriginal and Treaty rights are collective or communal in nature (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 CNLR 72). While such rights may be exercised, in certain circumstances, by individual members of the community, these rights remain collective or communal (R v Powley, [2003] 4 CNLR 321). While the judicial review applicants initially based their claims against the Province over its failure to consult them, to a great degree, on “Aboriginal rights”, they now premise their relief on a breach of the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26.

In the matter before this Court, the judicial review applicants believe a fair interpretation of the wording of the Mascarene Treaty allows for them to seek relief by way of judicial review for a breach of the Maliseets people’s rights. While they do not seek any declaratory relief specifically recognizing them as an authorized Aboriginal or Treaty rights holder for the Maliseet Nation, they do seek an order against the Province requiring it to fulfill a duty to consult prior to further work on the project continuing. Ostensibly, the judicial review applicants rely on the wording “any Indian” found in the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26 so as to suggest they have “constitutional standing” to proceed. While creative, there is no merit to this argument. Even if this Court were satisfied with the specific interpretation of the wording found in the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26, and in the manner now espoused by the judicial review applicants, there is an absence of evidence any of the judicial review applicants actually or actively pursued the very rights alleged to have been impacted and at the allegedly affected parts of Mount Carleton Park.

Even if the Court is in error with respect to standing, this dispute, as framed, is not appropriate for judicial review. A judicial review application should not be turned into a hearing de novo or an appeal. The Court’s role on judicial review is not to consider the matter anew or adjudicate conflicting expert opinions based on new evidence, but to review the decision on the basis of the material before the decision-maker. Aboriginal rights must be proven by tested evidence; they cannot be established as an incident of administrative law proceedings that centre on the adequacy of consultation and accommodation. To permit this would invite uncertainty and discourage final settlement of alleged rights through the proper processes. Aboriginal rights claims require that proper evidence be marshalled to meet specific legal tests in the context of a trial (R v Van der Peet; Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1998] 1 CNLR 14; and Mitchell v MNR, [2001] 3 CNLR 122).

There are a few cases where standing was made an issue. In those few cases, it was held that the Aboriginal party must show it, in fact, has recognized authority to represent an Aboriginal collective, or portions thereof, for purposes of section 35 constitutional reconciliation or litigation. In this matter, the judicial review applicants argue that they need not do so as the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26 expressly provides for their standing. Any Treaty interpretation, especially cases with such potentially broad application as in this case, must take into account all of the Aboriginal parties to the Treaty and the government(s). The judicial review applicants have chosen to proceed, not only without evidence of current representational authority for the collective Maliseet Nation, but they have done so in a forum to the exclusion of numerous recognized Maliseet entities, such as the First Nations communities in New Brunswick who quite likely may be affected by this proceeding and the relief sought.

R v Kowtak, 2019 NUCJ 03

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal allowed. The Justice of the Peace is required to consider Gladue factors in crafting an appropriate sentence. This was an error in law that justified an appellate intervention. A conditional discharge is a fit sentence for the appellant.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The appellant was at home, and while intoxicated and arguing with her spouse, assaulted her 15-year-old-daughter who attempted to intervene. The accused plead guilty and received a suspended sentence with nine months probation and a $100 victim fine surcharge. This is an appeal of that sentence on the grounds that the Justice of the Peace failed to consider Gladue factors, made impermissible statements about the accused, and deferred to the Crown’s position as presumptively reasonable.

It was determined in this appeal that the sentencing Justice of the Peace made an “impermissible speculation” about the accused’s lack of previous criminal record (R v Morrissey, 22 OR (3d) 514). The presumptive reasonableness of the Crown’s position was reviewed, and it was decided that the Justice of the Peace accepted the recommendation without considering the Defence recommendation. Any official deciding on an appropriate sentence must hear and consider both positions before deciding on a sentence. Further, there was no consideration of whether a conditional discharge would be appropriate, and this impacted the sentence. After considering these factors, and the role and value of Community Justices of the Peace, it was determined that the Justice of the Peace made a significant error in law as well as errors in the principle that affected the sentence in the case.

In deciding the sentence, the circumstances of the offender, and the applicable sentencing principles, including aggravating and mitigating factors, were considered. The Court followed s 718.1, which requires that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The charge of assault is statutorily aggravated under ss 718.2(a)(ii.1) and (iii) because it was committed on a person under the age of 18, to whom the appellant was in a position of authority, as her mother. The mitigating factors of the case included the fact that the appellant demonstrated remorse by pleading guilty early on and stated she was sorry for what she had done; she was 35 with no prior record; her future employment would be put at risk with a criminal record; the assault was relatively minor and no injuries resulted; as well the Gladue factors of overcrowding and victimization of Indigenous offenders were also taken into account.

The Court determined that it would be in the best interests of the community of Rankin Inlet to see that a history of employment and good behaviour be given substantial weight, as this is a guilty plea to a single, one-time breach of the law. It was determined that the Inuk first offender should be given a chance to show that it was an isolated incident from which she learned an important lesson, and also to avoid a criminal record which could significantly impact her ability to find future employment. The appeal is allowed and she is sentenced to a conditional discharge which will not result in a criminal record. This appeal was held after the Supreme Court of Canada declared victim fine surcharges unconstitutional with immediate effect, therefore, the appellant shall have the victim fine surcharge removed from her sentence (R v Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58).