Tag Archives: Aboriginal rights

Nunatsiavut Government v Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 129

Posted on by

The Court granted the Nunatsiavut Government declaratory relief in a dispute over the sharing of mineral taxation revenue from mining in Voisey’s Bay, Labrador under a Land Claims Agreement. These declarations clarified the 5% entitlement of the Nunatsiavut Government, that the provincial government should not be deducting certain costs incurred by the developer outside the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area, and that the provincial government breached its fiduciary duty in failing to provide adequate information to the Nunatsiavut Government regarding its negotiations with the developer.  

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The Inuit have been resident in Labrador since time immemorial. Traditionally they pursued hunting, fishing, whaling, sealing and gathering activities. The Inuit still have a heavy reliance on these traditional pursuits. Lithic materials were quarried to make stone implements such as harpoon heads and projectile points for arrows and spears. Soapstone was used for carving domestic items such as lamps and cooking vessels. Today many Inuit artists and craftspeople rely upon the quarrying of lithic materials to create sculptures and carvings.

The Labrador Inuit Association was formed for the purpose of negotiating the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement [“Land Claims Agreement”]. It was ratified by all three levels of government: Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunatsiavut. The Land Claims Agreement is recognized as a modern-day treaty and came into force in 2005. The Labrador Inuit Association was replaced by the Nunatsiavut Government, which has the responsibility, on behalf of the Inuit, to implement the Land Claims Agreement. The Land Claims Agreement is a constitutionally protected modern treaty under s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In case of conflict the provisions of the Land Claims Agreement prevail over federal and provincial legislation.

Voisey’s Bay is located in northern Labrador. The area was traditionally used by the Inuit in hunting, fishing and gathering activities. The Inuit’s Aboriginal interest in Voisey’s Bay was substantially affected by the Province declaring that the area was not available for selection by the Inuit once it learned that a world class nickel deposit lay beneath the surface. The Province’s de facto assumption of control over the area, and the successful negotiation of the Land Claims Agreement including a chapter relating to Voisey’s Bay, gave the Province responsibility for the management, calculation and disbursement of the Inuit Revenue share. In doing so, the Province owes the Inuit a duty of loyalty, good faith and full disclosure in the discharge of its obligations.

The Inuit negotiated under the Land Claims Agreement, and were granted, the right to be consulted by Canada and the Province in a number of areas including the Voisey’s Bay chapter. Under section 8.6.2 of the Land Claims Agreement the Province has a specific duty to consult with the Nunatsiavut Government prior to deciding an application for a permit or issuing an order pertaining to the Voisey’s Bay Project or to any other work or activity in the Voisey’s Bay Area. The duty to consult also exists outside the terms of the Land Claims Agreement. As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada, the duty to consult is imposed as a matter of law, irrespective of the parties’ “agreement”. It does not “affect” the agreement itself. It is simply part of the essential legal framework within which the treaty is to be interpreted and performed (Beckman v Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53 [“Little Salmon”]).

The historic treaty between the Inuit and Newfoundland and Labrador is not a commercial contract, and should not be interpreted as one (First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v Yukon, 2017 SCC 58). It is a nation to nation agreement that deserves to be interpreted in a generous manner. It is an agreement that must be considered having regard to the treaty text as a whole and with a view to the treaty’s objectives.

The objective of modern land claims agreements is to bring about a reconciliation between the competing interests of the affected Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown. The establishment of a positive, long-term relationship is in everyone’s best interests (Little Salmon). To that extent, the terms of the modern treaty must be interpreted in a fashion that is sui generis. The honour of the Crown gives rise to a fiduciary obligation when the Crown assumes discretionary control over a specific or cognizable Aboriginal interest. The Crown’s fiduciary obligations include the fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and full disclosure (Williams Lake Indian Band v Canada (AAND), 2018 SCC 4).

Please see the Telegram link for news coverage regarding this case: https://www.thetelegram.com/news/provincial/an-expensive-loss-502108/

‘Namgis First Nation v Mowi Canada West Ltd and Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard), 2020 FCA 122

Posted on by
Reply

Application allowed. There were concerns from a First Nation involving a salmon farming licence after learning of new scientific evidence regarding potential spread of disease. A novel adverse impact that arises since an original consultation, creates a fresh duty to consult.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

‘Namgis First Nation’s traditional territory is at the north end of Vancouver Island and includes a number of the adjacent islands, including Swanson Island, which lie between Vancouver Island and the mainland. A number of distinct wild salmon populations are found in this area. These populations are critically important to ‘Namgis for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Mowi operates an open net salmon facility adjacent to Swanson Island. That facility has been there since the early 1990’s and has been stocked with salmon during that period except for fallow periods between harvesting and restocking.

Restocking open-net facilities is at the heart of this litigation because there is an uncircumscribed risk of introducing disease agents into the waters used by wild salmon. That risk arises from the transfer of immature salmon, or smolts, from inland fish stations to the open-net aquaculture facilities. If disease-bearing fish are introduced into these waters and if those diseases spread to the wild salmon stocks, the results could be calamitous and perhaps irreversible.

‘Namgis First Nation appeals from the decision of the Federal Court dismissing its application for judicial review of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ [“Minister”] decision to issue a Salmonid Introductions and Transfer Licence [“Licence”] to Mowi Canada West Ltd. [“Mowi”]. The Federal Court had before it three separate but closely related applications for judicial review which it dealt with in one set of reasons (Morton v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2019 FC 143).

All three applications revolved around two risk factors for wild Pacific salmon in ‘Namgis’ asserted territory. The first is Piscine Orthoreovirus [“PRV”], a highly infectious virus that is known to be present in Canada. PRV is found in both farmed and wild salmon in British Columbia. The second is Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation [“HSMI”] which is an infectious disease found in farmed Atlantic Salmon and has appeared in one aquaculture facility in British Columbia. ‘Namgis is convinced that PRV and HSMI pose a threat to the wild salmon stocks which it relies on for food, social and ceremonial purposes. The Minister views the threat level as very low. The science as to the relationship between these two threats, their prevalence, and the risk they pose to wild (as opposed to farmed) salmon is evolving.

Given the history of consultation between these parties, the issue is not whether there is a duty to consult in the abstract but rather whether a fresh duty to consult arose. The Federal Court’s reasoning does not address the question of whether a novel adverse impact had arisen since the original consultation, which would create a fresh duty to consult.

The third element required in the test for a duty to consult calls for a generous, purposive approach recognizing that Crown action has the potential to irreversibly affect Aboriginal rights (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73; Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43 [“Rio Tinto”]). The adverse affect cannot be merely speculative, and it must be relevant to the future exercise of the Aboriginal right. The assessment of the duty to consult is forward looking. Prior and continuing breaches, including prior failures to consult, will only trigger a duty to consult if the present decision has the potential of causing a novel adverse impact on a present claim or existing right (Rio Tinto).

The science around PRV and HSMI is rapidly evolving so that it was not specifically covered in the original consultations concerning fish health. The risk of harm to the native salmon stocks may be greater than the Minister previously contemplated, thus the finding of a novel adverse impact.

R v Lamb, 2020 NBCA 22

Posted on by
Reply

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed. The order of a new trial is set aside and trial judge decision is restored. A non-Indigenous woman that has a band status card does not give her the Aboriginal right to hunt under Section 35 of the Constitution Act.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

A non-Indigenous woman registered with an Indian Status membership from her late husband, self-represented and asserted she had a Section 35(2) Aboriginal right of the Constitution Act, 1982 to shoot a moose out of season, as she was using it to feed her family.

The fact she carried a status card and was considered a member of the Burnt Church First Nation community was not in question. The real issue was whether or not that status equated to the woman having the right to hunt moose out of the season, which is a recognized Aboriginal right guaranteed by s 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The trial judge took the view, that in a situation such as this, the mere fact that a person holds a band card is insufficient to establish in and of itself their entitlement to constitutionally guaranteed Aboriginal rights. However, the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge ordered a new trial. This Court determines that appeal was in error and restores the trial judge’s decision. The custodial sentence of seven days in jail and the fine of $2,000 are stayed.

 

 

 

 

 

RR v Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society (No 4), 2020 BCHRT 22

Posted on by
Reply

West Coast LEAF’s application to intervene granted in part in a complaint of alleged discrimination, as it can contribute a unique and helpful perspective regarding the social context of Indigenous people in child welfare.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

RR filed a complaint of discrimination against Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society [“Society”] alleging that its decision to deny her custody and restrict access to her children amounts to discrimination on the basis of her race, ancestry, color, and mental disability. West Coast LEAF applied to intervene in the complaint under s 22.1 of the Human Rights Code [“Code”] stating it could assist the Tribunal to situate the complaint in its broader social context as well as interpreting both the Code and the Child, Family and Community Services Act in a manner consistent with the Charter and international law. RR supported the intervention, the Society opposed it.

Neither party raised issues related to Charter values, and in the view of the Tribunal, none arose in the complaint. Rather, this case involved an application of s 8 of the Code to the facts of this case, within a framework well known to human rights law and therefore the application to make submissions about Charter values was denied. Second, this complaint did not require the Tribunal to interpret s 8 or apply it in a novel circumstance and therefore that application was denied as well.

A different conclusion was reached for the remaining three proposed submissions. Based on the Tribunal specifically identifying the need to have full regard to the social context of Indigenous people in child welfare, the first two submissions concerned the social context underlying the complaint. West Coast LEAF had a unique and helpful perspective to bring to the Tribunal established through their demonstrable expertise in equality.

The application of West Coast LEAF to intervene was granted as follows: it had leave to make oral submissions during the opening, not to exceed 10 minutes; it had leave to file written submissions at the close of the hearing; the scope of the submissions was limited to the issues identified above; and it did not have standing to take part in any procedural matters before the Tribunal without leave.

Neshkiwe v Hare, 2020 ONCJ 42

Posted on by
Reply

Motion granted for the M’Chigeeng First Nation to be added as a party to the proceedings in keeping with the best interests of the child. This matter will eventually involve constitutional questions surrounding the children’s custody.

Native Law Centre
CaseWatch Blog

Following the parent’s separation, an Indigenous mother left Toronto with her two children. Shortly after the father, who is also Indigenous but from a different community than the mother, launched an ex parte motion for temporary custody, that was granted. The ex parte motion ordered the children’s return to Toronto and for police assistance from various police forces to enforce this Court’s order. The mother and M’Chigeeng First Nation [“MFN”] advised the Court they intended to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to make any orders for custody or access, asserting exclusive jurisdiction of the children.

In the meantime, the Court’s ex parte Order had not been followed. The father initially only served the Order for enforcement on UCCM Anishnaabe Police Service [“UCCM”] and did not serve it on OPP until the term for police enforcement was about to expire. The mother nor the MFN had prepared Notices of Constitutional Questions, while still raising a challenge and taking steps outside the Court consistent with that position. On December 5, the Court directed all Constitutional Question were to be served and filed before December 19 and granted leave to MFN to bring a motion to be added as a party to this proceeding. The enforcement term was stayed on a without prejudice basis.

MFN is asserting exclusive jurisdiction of the children. Both the mother and the MFN have advised the Court that they intend to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to make any orders for custody or access. They anticipated advancing this claim based on an existing Aboriginal and Treaty right under s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, neither has been pleaded, nor any Notices of Constitutional Question been served or filed. The mother also took the position that the Court lacked jurisdiction based on the application of an existing By-Law and a Band Council Resolution, both of which had been passed by the MFN, as an alternative legal basis from the anticipated section claims.

Until such arguments could be sorted out, a practical problem unfolded that still exists. The mother indicated to the Court that she would not comply with the Court’s Order. The MFN prohibited the father from coming onto its territory. UCCM refused to enforce the Order, as it had been instructed by the MFN to act in that fashion. The OPP, however, would enforce the Order, but brought the Court’s attention to certain potential negative consequences for the Court to consider. It was suggested to suspend the operation of the police enforcement term until the legal questions are resolved.

The Court has issued another Endorsement containing further directions for the conduct of this case and has asked that a litigation plan be presented. Regarding the police enforcement term, the Court stayed enforcement, which was about to expire anyway, on a without prejudice basis.

The overarching consideration in deciding to add the MFN as a party to the proceedings was in keeping with the best interests of the children. It was not seriously disputed that the First Nation should be added as a party. The s 35 claims have both individual and collective aspects to them. Adding the First Nation to the proceedings was also in the best interests of the children as they have a position to take and to offer evidence surrounding these particular children. Lastly, they have a legal interest. Once that position has been clarified after a full hearing, then they may call into question the Court’s jurisdiction.

Cowichan Tribes v Canada (AG), 2019 BCSC 1922

Posted on by
Reply

Indigenous peoples’ claims require flexibility in order to be fairly adjudicated, but that is not a blanket admissibility of evidence. As with oral history, proving colonial documents has similar difficulties and should only be submitted following an assessment of their reliability.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The plaintiffs seek declarations related to Aboriginal title to lands along the south shore of Lulu Island in the City of Richmond. They also claim fishing rights as the Cowichan people had a semi-permanent fishing village called Tl’uqtinus along the south arm of the Fraser River. There is heavy reliance on oral history and hearsay evidence contained in thousands of historical documents and on expert evidence to provide an opinion on the nature and character of the occupation by the Cowichan peoples in the past.

The plaintiffs submit that the defendants improperly objected to the admissibility of the documents. They submit that all of the documents should be admissible for the prima facie truth of their contents, leaving the question of reliability to be considered when assessing the ultimate weight given to the documents. The plaintiffs acknowledge that hearsay is presumptively inadmissible, however, in Aboriginal rights claims under s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the rules of evidence should be broad, flexible and applied purposively to promote truth finding and fairness for plaintiffs faced with having to prove facts across a gulf of centuries (Mitchell v MNR, [2001] 3 CNLR 122 [“Mitchell”]).

Admitting a document into evidence for prima facie truth of its contents does not bind the court to the contents of the document. In some circumstances, however, hearsay evidence presents minimal dangers and its exclusion, rather than its admission, would impede accurate fact finding (R v Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57 [“Khelawon”]). To address this, there have been common law exceptions to the rule against hearsay and the Supreme Court of Canada [“SCC”] developed the principled approach employing a more flexible, case-by-case approach to assessing admissibility. Under this principled approach, hearsay can be admitted if the party tendering it establishes on a balance of probabilities that the twin criteria of necessity and threshold reliability are satisfied (Khelawon). The trial judge acts as a gatekeeper to protect trial fairness and the integrity of the truth-seeking process by protecting against the admission of unreliable evidence (R v Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35).

In regards to hearsay in Indigenous claims, the SCC recognized the need for a flexible adaption of the traditional rules of evidence in Aboriginal claims cases, but made it clear that the rules of evidence are not to be abandoned. The flexible approach to evidence does not mandate blanket admissibility, and the threshold for reliability, while not high in Aboriginal claims cases, does continue to exist (Mitchell). Historical Aboriginal claims and rights cases have inherent evidentiary challenges. Necessity is almost automatically met given that these cases rely heavily on ancient documents and hearsay evidence of the deceased (Mitchell; Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1998] 1 CNLR 14 (SCC); Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44).

That assessment may be fairly automatic if the document falls within certain categories, such as public documents, or official communications between persons responsible for stewardship of government. The court can rely on the evidence of experts to provide it with the information necessary to conduct a reliability assessment. The fact that an expert relies on a document does not automatically establish reliability of the document for the court, but it is evidence that the expert finds the document to be reliable. Courts need the assistance of experts to evaluate and understand historical documents. One of the difficulties in this case is that no living person can be called to give eye witness evidence of what was happening in the claim area before, at the time of, and for many decades after first contact with European settlers (Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 1237 [“Tsilhqot’in BCSC”]).

It is abundantly apparent the parties must rely on historical documents, oral history and traditions, ethnography and archaeology in the proof of their cases. The meaning of documents is not always self-evident and can only be understood in context. That is particularly true of historical documents where it cannot be properly evaluated until the court knows who wrote it, for whom it was written, and, most importantly, why it was written (Tsilhqot’in BCSC). The distinction between threshold reliability and ultimate reliability remains, and the trial judge still must act as a gatekeeper to keep the record free from unreliable hearsay and to protect the fairness and integrity of the trial.

Taseko Mines Limited v Tsilhqot’in National Government, 2019 BCSC 1507

Posted on by
Reply

Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the Tsilhqot’in Nation against Taseko Mines Limited work permit, on the basis that it infringes their Aboriginal rights.

Native Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

Taseko Mines Limited [“Taseko”] applied to prohibit members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation [“Tsilhqot’in”] from blockading its access to an area where the mining company wants to carry out an exploratory drilling program [“NOW program”]. Taseko has access pursuant to a notice of work permit [“NOW permit”] issued under the Mines Act. That application is now moot since the Court decided Tsilhqot’in’s application will succeed for an injunction prohibiting Taseko from carrying out its NOW program until the Tsilqot’in’s underlying claim to quash the NOW permit is heard.

In this matter, the issue is whether granting Tsilqot’in the interim injunction prohibiting Taseko from undertaking the NOW program would amount to a final determination of the action, which would effectively remove any benefit of proceeding to trial. The NOW permit will expire in July 2020, and if Taseko is enjoined until the action is heard, it is very unlikely the trial could be completed in time to for the 4-6 weeks required to complete the NOW program. In the Court’s view, the extension is essentially mechanical and concludes that Taseko will have until July 2022 to complete the NOW program, because Taseko can extend the NOW permit by two years under s 5(1) of the Permit Regulation.

Issues pertaining to infringement and justification, which will be the focus of the trial, are not new to the parties. Because some of the factual and legal elements have been argued before different courts for years, the discovery process will not be as time consuming as it would be if the issues were new to the parties. Based on the evidence and submissions before the Court, if the parties prioritize the matter, the timeline should be adequate to prepare for trial. The injunction is not tantamount to granting relief nor is it bound to impose a hardship removing any benefit of trial. The threshold merits test is the serious question to be tried standard (R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5). This threshold is relatively low as a prolonged examination of the merits is generally neither necessary nor desirable (RJR-MacDonald Inc  v Canada, [1944] 1 SCR 311).

It was determined that given the nature of the harm to the Tsilhqot’in, and the waiving of the undertaking as to damages, there was a material risk of irreparable harm to both parties. When there is a risk of both parties suffering a material risk of irreparable harm, the court should favor the status quo (AG British Columbia v Wale (1986), 9 BCLR (2d) 333 (CA)). It was determined that the NOW program would change the status quo as it would disturb the land. The Tsilhqot’in stand to suffer greater irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Despite that the Tsilhqot’in pursued a self-help remedy of a blockade outside the courts, the imperative of reconciliation was such that the balance of convenience was in the Tsilhqot’in’s favour.

NC v Kunuwanimano CFS and Fort Albany First Nation, 2019 CFSRB 7

Posted on by
Reply

The decision of the Respondent to refuse the adoption of three Indigenous children placed in the Applicant’s care is confirmed under s 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Native Law Centre Case Watch

The Applicant requested a review pursuant to s 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, [“Act”]. This application refers to a decision made in favour of the Respondent, Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services, [“KCFS”] who refused the Applicant’s application to adopt three children who were placed in her care for two years. The children were apprehended from the care of their parents by the North Eastern Ontario Child and Family Services and made Crown Wards without access for the purpose of adoption. The children’s mother, who is deceased, and their father have membership with the Fort Albany First Nation [“FAFN”]. The children’s files were transferred to the KCFS, an Indigenous child welfare agency and were subsequently placed in a foster home. After three years the foster home could no longer care for the children due to uncontrollable circumstances. The children were then placed in the care of the Applicant and remained in her care for almost two years until their abrupt removal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board’s [“CFSRB”] determination is made in accordance with the expanded definition of the test for the best interests of the child set out in s 179(2) of the Act. In addition to giving prominence to the child’s views and wishes, as well as the recognition of Indigenous cultures and connections to their community, the preamble of the Act also acknowledges that children are individuals with rights to be respected and voices to be heard.

SV, who is the most recent placement for the children, is a member of the Moose Cree First Nation and grew up alongside the children’s father. The evidence is clear that SV has strong connections to the children’s community and cultural heritage. Her practices are traditional in her home where the children are introduced to hunting and fishing and that this was consistent with a way of life, rather than simply an activity. She has taken significant measures to connect the children to their extended family with whom she is well acquainted.

In contrast, the Applicant has no significant ties to the children’s First Nations community or extended family. The Applicant knows very little about the cultural practices of the children’s Indigenous community, or the Illilu people. It was clear that she cares deeply for the children and wishes to adopt all three of them. Her evidence, supported by report cards and the agency’s own documents, was that they were well-cared for in her home and had developed a bond with her and her family. The views and wishes of the children also confirmed the strong bond that the children have with the Applicant. The abrupt removal of the children from her care was traumatic for her and also for the children.

The CFSRB, however, is also mindful of the view of family and community that is expressed by the FAFN and the emphasis on customary care alternatives for Indigenous children under the Act. It is also through the current placement that the children are reconnecting with their father, albeit not as a primary caregiver. While SV is not a direct relation to the children, it is clear that she has strong historical and current connections to the children’s extended family and is committed to facilitating their relationships with family as much as possible. The Applicant simply cannot offer the same commitment and ease of connection to family as SV.

Of considerable importance to our determination is the connection between the siblings. They have always been together and expressed a wish to remain that way. The CFSRB finds that to separate the Children at this time would not be in their best interests and along with all the above factors, favours confirmation of the Respondents’ position. The CFSRB, however, is also of the view the children were not given the opportunity to properly say good-bye to the Applicant and suggested that the KCFS facilitate an acknowledgement and contact to bring some finality to these unresolved feelings.

R v Desautel, 2019 BCCA 151

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal dismissed. The Respondent is not prevented from claiming an Aboriginal right to hunt in British Columbia pursuant to s 35 even though he resides in the United States of America.

Native Law Centre Case Watch

Richard Desautel was charged under the Wildlife Act after hunting an elk without a license in the Arrow Lakes area of British Columbia. He admitted the actus reus but asserted that he has a s 35 Aboriginal right to hunt in the territory despite being a citizen of the United States of America [“USA”]. Mr. Desautel has never resided in British Columbia but is a member of the Lakes Tribe of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State. His Sinixt ancestors had occupied territory above and below the 49th parallel, including the area in which he was hunting. At the time of contact with Europeans, they hunted, fished, and gathered throughout their territory.

Does the meaning of the phrase “the Aboriginal peoples of Canada” in s 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 include only Aboriginal peoples who are resident or citizens of Canada, or also Aboriginal peoples whose ancestors occupied territory that became Canada? S 35 is directed towards the reconciliation of pre-existing Indigenous societies with the assertion of Crown sovereignty. A practice, custom, or tradition that is central and significant to the distinctive culture of an Indigenous society pre-contact that has not been voluntarily surrendered, abandoned, or extinguished, may be exercised by Indigenous members of modern collectives if they can establish that: 1) the modern collective is descended from the historic collective that exercised the practice, custom or tradition in that territory; and 2) there has been continuity between the practice of the modern collective with the practice of the historic collective pre-contact (R v Van der Peet, [1996] 4 CNLR 177 [“Van der Peet”]).

S 35(1) provides the constitutional framework to acknowledge the fact that Aboriginals lived on the land in distinctive societies, with their own practices, traditions and culture and to reconcile this with the sovereignty of the Crown. The burden of proof was on Mr. Desautel to establish the Aboriginal right claimed and a prima facie infringement of that right (R v Sparrow, [1990] 3 CNLR 160 [“Sparrow”]). The meaning and scope of s 35(1) is derived from the general principles of constitutional interpretation relating to [A]boriginal rights, and the purposes behind the constitutional provision itself. Sparrow also requires that s 35(1) be construed in a purposive way and that the words in s 35(1) be afforded a generous, liberal interpretation. Further, in Van der Peet it was instructed that the courts take into account the perspective of the Aboriginal peoples claiming the right and any doubt or ambiguity as to what falls within the scope of s 35 must be resolved in their favour. Applying the Van der Peet test, the concept of continuity must have a necessary connection between the historic collective and the modern-day community. Therefore, claimants who are resident or citizens of the USA can be “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” where they can establish the requirements set out in Van der Peet.

Courts adjudicating Aboriginal rights claims must be sensitive to the Aboriginal perspective, but also aware that Aboriginal rights exist within the general legal system of Canada. The time period integral to the Aboriginal community claiming the right is the period prior to contact. Where an Aboriginal community can demonstrate that a particular practice, custom or tradition has continuity with those of pre-contact times, that community will have demonstrated that the practice, custom or tradition is an Aboriginal right for the purposes of s 35(1). The concept of continuity is the means by which a “frozen rights” approach to s 35(1) will be avoided. Continuity does not require evidence of an unbroken chain of continuity. Aboriginal rights are constitutional rights, but that does not negate the central fact that the interests that the rights are intended to protect, relate to the specific history of the group claiming the right. Aboriginal rights are not general and universal as their scope and content must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The existence of the right will be specific to each Aboriginal community.

Mr. Desautel’s right to hunt in the traditional territory of his ancestors in that geographical area were never voluntarily surrendered, abandoned or extinguished. This Court will not modify the Van der Peet test to add a geographic requirement that would prevent members of Indigenous communities, who may have been displaced, from the opportunity of establishing their Aboriginal rights in areas their ancestors had occupied pre-contact. This matter is distinguishable from R v Powley, [2003] 4 CNLR 321 [“Powley”] where in order to accommodate the unique history of the Métis communities that evolved post-contact, the time period analysis in Van der Peet was focused on pre-European control. Powley requires an Aboriginal rights claimant to be a member of a contemporary community in the geographic area where the right was exercised. It is also distinguished from R v Bernard, [2018] 1 CNLR 79, where a Mi’kmaq member of the Sipekne’katik First Nation in New Brunswick was charged with contravening the Fish and Wildlife Act, for hunting deer. The trial judge found Mr. Bernard had failed to establish that he was a member of a modern collective descended from the original rights-bearing Mi’kmaq community that hunted at the mouth of the St. John River. Unlike Mr. Bernard, Mr. Desautel has established a connection to the historic community that hunted in the traditional territory where the claimed Aboriginal right was exercised.

It has been determined that there is continuity of the practice of hunting in the area where Mr. Desautel shot the elk. Members of the Lakes Tribe are the modern-day successor collective of the Sinixt peoples and Mr. Desautel was exercising his lawful Aboriginal right to hunt for ceremonial purposes in the traditional territory of his Sinixt ancestors, pursuant to s 35(1). The issues raised by the Crown regarding the Lakes Tribe’s legal status in the USA, or the extent of any potential duty to consult and accommodate, raises ancillary questions that, in the Court’s view, are not material to the central issue.

Fort McKay Métis Community Association v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2019 ABCA 15

Posted on by
Reply

Permission to appeal denied. The Fort McKay Métis Community Association expressed fears about the potential impact of a project on their Aboriginal rights. It is yet to be answered whether such subjective fears interfere with an undefined Aboriginal right.

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch

The Fort McKay Métis Community Association (Fort McKay Métis) applied for permission to appeal a decision of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) that approved Prosper Petroleum Ltd.’s (“Prosper”) oil sands project (the “Project”). The Fort McKay Métis asserts that it has Métis Aboriginal rights to harvest for food in its community and traditional harvesting area and that the Project would adversely affect these constitutionally protected rights. The Project would be located near and operate within part of the Fort McKay First Nation’s reserves. Prosper applied to the AER for approvals in 2013 so it could proceed with the Project under the Oil Sands Conservation Act, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and the Water Act, which was granted. The Project, however, still needs Cabinet approval, and at the time of this current application, it has not yet been issued.

The AER found the Project to be in the public interest and was consistent with statutory objectives of protecting the environment and promoting sustainable resource development while considering economic growth. It approved the Project on the condition that Prosper will seek input from the Fort McKay Métis with respect to reclamation. The AER found the fear of contamination and other potential impacts to Métis Aboriginal rights was genuine, but implicitly not justified. The content of an Aboriginal right is a legal issue. The AER has a legal obligation to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in a manner consistent with s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc, [2017] 3 CNLR 45 (“Chippewas”)). The regulator must consider Aboriginal rights “as rights, rather than as an afterthought to the assessment” (Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc, [2017] 3 CNLR 65 (“Clyde River”)). None of the applicant’s authorities supported the view that genuine fears about the effects of the Project, which are not objectively reasonable, are sufficient by themselves to constitute interference with a right protected under s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. An independent regulatory agency’s approval of an energy project could trigger the Crown’s duty to consult Aboriginal groups whose treaty and Aboriginal rights might be adversely affected by the project, and this agency could fulfill the Crown’s duty to consult on its behalf (Clyde River; Chippewas).