Tag Archives: Honour of the Crown

Iskatewizaagegan No 39 Independent First Nation v Winnipeg (City), 2021 ONSC 1209

Posted on by

Ontario’s motion is dismissed. Ontario moved for an Order to strike out Iskatewizaagegan’s Amended Statement of Claim claiming that it is plain and obvious that Iskatewizaagegan pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action for breach of a sui generis or an ad hoc fiduciary duty. The Court finds that it is not plain and obvious that Iskatewizaagegan does not have a tenable cause of action based on a sui generis fiduciary duty or an ad hoc fiduciary duty.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

The City of Winnipeg, Manitoba [“Winnipeg”] extracts its drinking water from Shoal Lake, which is located predominantly in Ontario, but also Manitoba. Shoal Lake has been extracted for this purpose for over 100 years but has not paid anything to the Plaintiff, the Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation [“Iskatewizaagegan”]. Winnipeg is being sued by Iskatewizaagegan for compensation for injurious affection, with damages claimed at $500 million. Iskatewizaagegan also sues the Province of Ontario, for breach of fiduciary duty.

Iskatewizaagegan pleads two distinct theories of Crown liability for breach of fiduciary duty: 1) a sui generis fiduciary duty based on the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown; and 2) an ad hoc fiduciary duty. It relies on a 1913 Order in Council along with antecedent Royal Proclamations and Treaties and sequent legislation enacted by Ontario.

In this matter, Ontario moves for an Order to strike out Iskatewizaagegan’s Amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend and to dismiss the action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Ontario states that it is plain and obvious that Iskatewizaagegan pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action for breach of a sui generis or an ad hoc fiduciary duty. Ontario’s action is dismissed.

The people of Iskatewizaagegan are Anishinaabe. They are a distinct Aboriginal society, a recognized Band under the Indian Act, and an Aboriginal people within the meaning of s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Shoal Lake is a part of the cultural identity of Iskatewizaagegan and its people. Since time immemorial, the Anishinaabe have used the waters of Shoal Lake and the surrounding land for survival. Iskatewizaagegan’s culture is coextensive with Shoal Lake and the surrounding land. The transmission of Anishinaabe teachings, traditions, and values to future generations takes place and continues to take place at Shoal Lake.

Common law real property concepts do not apply to Aboriginal lands or to reserves. Aboriginal title and interest in reserves are communal sui generis interests in land that are rights of use and occupation that are distinct from common law proprietary interests. An Aboriginal interest in land will generally have an important cultural component that reflects the relationship between an Aboriginal community and the land. The Aboriginal interest in land is a sui generis independent beneficial legal ownership interest that burdens the Crown’s underlying title, which is not a beneficial ownership interest and which may rather give rise to a fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown.

Iskatewizaagegan is a beneficiary of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and was ratified by assembled Indigenous Nations by the Treaty of Niagara 1764. In the summer of 1764, representatives of the Crown and approximately 24 First Nations, met at Niagara. The lengthy discussions lead to the Treaty of Niagara 1764, which was recorded in wampum. The Crown does not recognize the Treaty of Niagara 1764 as substantively altering the legal effects of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In contrast, First Nations assert that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 must be understood together with the Treaty of Niagara 1764 and so understood the Royal Proclamation of 1763 constitutes a recognition of Indigenous sovereignty.

In 1873, Iskatewizaagegan entered into Treaty No 3 with the Crown. The reserve of Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 adjacent to Shoal Lake was established pursuant to Treaty No 3. Treaty No 3 is a pre-confederation treaty on behalf of the Dominion of Canada and Chiefs of the Ojibway. The Ojibway yielded ownership of their territory, except for certain lands reserved to them. In return, the Ojibway received annuity payments, goods, and the right to harvest the non-reserve lands surrendered by them until such time as they were taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering, or other purposes by the Government of the Dominion of Canada. Although Treaty No 3 was negotiated with the Crown in right of Canada, the promises made in Treaty No 3 are promises of the Crown. The federal Government and Ontario are responsible for fulfilling the promises of Treaty No 3 when acting within the division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867.

In exercising its jurisdiction over Treaty No 3 lands, Ontario is bound by the duties attendant on the Crown and it must exercise its powers in conformity with the honour of the Crown and the fiduciary duties that lie on the Crown in dealing with Aboriginal interests. The honour of the Crown has been a principle animating Crown conduct since at least the Royal Proclamation of 1763, through which the British asserted sovereignty over what is now Canada and assumed de facto control over land and resources previously in the control of Aboriginal peoples. The categorical fiduciary duty owed by the Crown in the Aboriginal context is sui generis. From the honour of the Crown and the Federal Government’s exclusive jurisdiction in respect of Indians under s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Crown has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to Aboriginal peoples.

Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2021 SCTC 1

Posted on by
Reply

As a result of breach of Crown fiduciary duty arising in a 1905 surrender of lands, compensation due to the Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation, totalled a combined amount of $126,933,972.00. The Crown took a surrender vote in contravention of the statutory requirement that permitted only members of the Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man Bands to vote, and later accepted and acted on the surrender. Pursuant to Treaty obligations, Canada admitted that it breached its pre-surrender fiduciary obligation, which rendered the 1905 surrender of lands invalid.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

This matter is the determination of the compensation due to the Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation [“Claimant”], as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty of the Crown [“Respondent”] in the surrender of land from Indian Reserve No. 110/111 [“Lands”]. The reserve land of the Claimant totals 46,208 acres. The Claimant is of Assiniboine, Nakoda and Stony descent. The Claimant’s ancestors adhered to Treaty 6 and Treaty 4. The Claimant is also a “band” within the meaning of the term in the Indian Act, and was established by an amalgamation of three bands.

Pursuant to Treaty obligations, the Crown set aside land for the benefit of Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man Bands with the Lands. In 1905, the Crown took a surrender of a 14,670-acre parcel. The surrendered land comprised approximately 2/3 of the reserve. The Claimant is, for the purpose of this proceeding, the successor in interest to any cause of action that may arise against the Crown as a result of the surrender.

Awards of compensation where a claim is found valid are governed by paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act [“SCTA”], which provides that the Tribunal is to award compensation “that it considers just, based on the principles of compensation applied by the courts”. Equitable compensation is a remedy where a breach of fiduciary duty is found and applies in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty with respect to a surrender of reserve land (Guerin v R, [1984] 2 SCR 335 [“Guerin”]). Where reserve land is affected by an invalid surrender, section 20(1)(g) of the SCTA requires that the Tribunal award compensation equal to the current unimproved market value [“CUMV”] of the subject lands. The Tribunal must also, under section 20(1)(h) of the SCTA, award compensation equal to the value of the loss of use [“LOU”] of the lands, brought forward to the present value of the loss.

Although the agreement did not describe the events and actions that breached Crown fiduciary duty, the evidence introduced in the compensation phase of the proceeding reveals that the Crown took a surrender vote in contravention of the statutory requirement that permitted only members of the Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man Bands to vote, and later accepted and acted on the surrender. This was, from the outset, a breach of the duty of ordinary prudence. This breach occurred within a Treaty relationship, with respect to a Treaty reserve, and the breach led directly to the permanent alienation of Treaty reserve land from the Claimant.

The evidence was for the most part comprised of filed expert reports, their respective reliance documents, and the testimony of the authors on direct and cross examination. The expert reports addressed the historical context of the breach, the CUMV of the Claim Lands, LOU models describing foregone revenues from the Claim Lands from 1905 to present, and present valuation of foregone revenues.

Equitable compensation “attempts to restore to the plaintiff what has been lost as a result of the breach; i.e. the plaintiff’s lost opportunity” (Canson Enterprises Ltd v Boughton & Co, [1991] 3 SCR 534 [“Canson”]). The underlying policies that guide the assessment of equitable compensation in this claim include restitution (Guerin; Canson), reconciliation (SCTA), deterrence (Canson), fairness, and proportionality (Hodgkinson v Simms, [1994] 3 SCR 377). Equitable compensation is assessed at the time of trial, not the date of the breach. Therefore, the assessment is of the loss at present, with all losses represented by a single award. There is a common sense connection between the loss of use of the land and the loss of revenue that may have been paid into the Claimant’s coffers if the land had been leased out to farmers.

At all relevant times, the Indian Act applied to the Crown’s management of the Claimant’s funds. If the land had been surrendered for leasing, the reality would be that lease revenue would have been deposited in the Band Trust Account. The Tribunal adopted the Band Trust Account rate. Revenue from leasing would if in fact received be deposited in the Band Trust Account, and would earn interest at the rate set annually on such funds, compounded annually. The Tribunal determined CUMV of $15,500,000.00, effective September 21, 2017. The Tribunal assessed the present value of loss of use to December 31, 2019 at $111,433,972.00. This amount is net of the payments made by the Crown to the Claimant in respect of the Claim Lands from 1906 to 1956. The combined amount awarded for CUMV and LOU, subject to adjustment, is $126,933,972.00.

Cowichan Tribes v Canada (AG), 2020 BCSC 1507

Posted on by
Reply

Cowichan Tribes is entitled to claim privilege over information that their Lands and Governance Director learned from Cowichan Elders during Treaty Committee meetings and during his involvement in a project-specific traditional land use study. The public interest in reconciliation through good faith treaty negotiations and the duty to consult favours case-by-case privilege in this case.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

This matter is in regards to an Aboriginal title and rights case, where the testimony of Mr. George, Lands and Governance Director for Cowichan Tribes, was questioned on communications that was learned of during Cowichan Tribes Treaty Committee meetings and related to traditional use interviews, over which the plaintiffs claim privilege. The Treaty Committee meetings were held to advise on Cowichan Tribes’ approaches to treaty negotiations and the pursuit of Aboriginal rights and title. Cowichan Tribes was advised on strategic use of oral history information including oral histories shared at Treaty Committee meetings.

In establishing confidentiality at common law, the Supreme Court of Canada first adopted the Wigmore’s four criterion in Slavutych v Baker, [1976] 1 SCR 254: 1) the communications must originate in confidence that they will not be disclosed; 2) this element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties; 3) the relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered; and 4) the injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation. The party seeking to protect the communication from disclosure must demonstrate that the authors of the communications possessed expectations of confidentiality (Northwest Organics, Limited Partnership v Roest, 2017 BCSC 673 [“Roest”]; Yahey v British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 123 [“Yahey”]).

The plaintiffs submit that the communications were made during these confidential Treaty Committee meetings which were conducted with an expectation that the information would not be disclosed. Confidentiality is essential to Cowichan Tribes’ relationship with its members and its ability to ask knowledge holders and Elders to share information about traditional use. This relationship of trust is essential to Cowichan Tribes’ ability to engage in good faith consultation with the Crown. The Cowichan community view this relationship as one that should be sedulously fostered. Allowing disclosure of the contents of the interviews in the litigation would undermine the constitutionally protected process while having minimal benefit to the disposal of this litigation.

The court in Roest held that the Wigmore criteria are not “carved in stone” but are a “general framework within which policy considerations and the requirements of fact-finding can be weighed and balanced on the basis of their relative importance in the particular case” (Roest; R v National Post, 2010 SCC 16). Case-by-case privilege may restrict disclosure where Wigmore’s four criteria for establishing confidentiality at common law exists. Those criteria seek to balance the protection of confidential communication with the public interest in the correct disposal of litigation (P(V) v Linde, [1996] 2 WWR 48).

The Wigmore criteria have been applied to preserve the confidentiality of interviews with Elders and community members undertaken in the course of traditional use studies (Yahey). These criteria must be applied to such interviews in a manner sensitive to the unique legal and constitutional context of the duty to consult, which is underpinned by the honour of the Crown and reconciliation, and involves reciprocal duties on the Crown and First Nations to participate in good faith in the consultation process. This application must also be viewed in the context of the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult and deal honourably with First Nations. This context includes Cowichan Tribes’ reciprocal duty to “express its interests and concerns regarding potential impacts to its rights, and to consult in good faith” and recognition of the fundamental importance of reconciliation between the Crown and First Nations in this process (Yahey; Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69).

In this case, the four Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege are met. The plaintiffs are not evincing an intention to rely on, or benefit from, the evidence they claim to be privileged. They are not seeking to adduce evidence about the substantive content of the Treaty Committee discussions. Nor do they seek to rely on the substantive content of some interviews conducted while shielding other interviews from disclosure. Rather, they adduced evidence of oral history from other sources. The question of what Mr. George learned in Cowichan Tribes Treaty Committee meetings regarding oral history of Cowichan Tribes Elders about fishing on the Fraser River is disallowed as the answers it would elicit are privileged.

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/

West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 138

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal dismissed. There is no reversible error of law or fact demonstrated in the trial judge’s analysis of a long-standing dispute over the western boundary of Treaty 8.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

In 2005, the West Moberly First Nations, Halfway River First Nation, Saulteaux First Nations, Prophet River First Nation and Doig River First Nation [“Respondent FNs”] commenced the underlying litigation and are the respondents on appeal. The interest of the Respondent FNs in obtaining the declaration granted stems from their position that the Treaty gives them hunting, trapping and fishing rights [“harvesting rights”] throughout a tract of land defined in a “metes and bounds clause” of Treaty 8 [“tract”]. However, whether the Treaty gives them such rights throughout that tract was not the subject matter of the litigation at trial.

Between 1871 and 1921, the Dominion of Canada (“Canada”) entered into 11 “numbered treaties” with Indigenous groups throughout the country. This appeal concerns Treaty 8, which was signed on June 21, 1899, at Lesser Slave Lake in the District of Athabasca. What the original signatories to the Treaty meant by the phrase “the central range of the Rocky Mountains” has been a vexing issue for over 100 years. In the underlying litigation, Respondent FNs represent descendants of Indigenous groups who signed adhesion agreements with Canada or individuals who were added to the rolls of the Treaty. The plaintiffs applied for a declaration that the western boundary of the tract described in the Treaty referred to the height of land along the continental divide between the Arctic and Pacific watersheds, approximately 48,000 square miles. The trial judge concluded this clause referred to the Arctic-Pacific Divide, which is located within the Rocky Mountains up until the 54th parallel north, then diverges west.

The dissent stated that no declaration was available in the circumstances of this case or in the alternative, the only declaration available was one stating the relevant provision refers to a watershed of the Rocky Mountains. The dissent views that declarations must affect a legal right and since it is unclear from the text of the Treaty alone that any rights are tied to the provision, and consequently, the declaration should not have been granted.

The majority favoured that the declaration of the trial judge is upheld, and that there was no error in law or fact in his judgement. The requested declaration clarifies legal rights and obligations and the trial judge had discretion to issue it. The Court should not interfere with the conclusions he reached from his vantage point at trial. There is no obligation in the law of declaratory relief to litigate the range of a declaration’s effects. The question is simply whether the declaration will have practical utility.

Regardless of the right or obligation being interpreted, if there is a possibility it could be affected by the location of the western boundary, the parties will be assisted by knowing that boundary. The Treaty 8 First Nations who assert rights within the tract may find the declaration clarifies their ability to protect those rights through the existing Treaty, rather than as s 35 rights stemming from historic use and occupation.

As well, under the majority’s view, the honour of the Crown may give rise to a remedy if this was breached in the setting of the boundary, but it should not change the interpretation of the evidence. There is ambiguity over whether Treaty 8 entitles signatories to hunt, trap, and fish throughout Treaty 8 or whether Treaty 8 only guarantees this right within their traditional territory (i.e. a subset of the Treaty). This again ties back into the effect of Treaty 8 on non-treaty First Nations in BC whose territories are covered by the western boundary accepted at trial. If Treaty 8 only guarantees harvesting rights within the traditional territories of the signatory First Nations then it will have no effect on the First Nations in the Rockies who were never consulted.

 Another legal issue discussed, was the relevance of the Indigenous perspective on treaty versus the trial judge’s heavy emphasis on the Crown’s perspective. All judges on appeal seem to agree that this is important but the majority decision found there to be very little evidence of the Indigenous perspective, hence the trial judge’s emphasis on the Crown’s perspective.

 

Gamlaxyeltexw v BC (Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations), 2020 BCCA 215

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal dismissed. The hereditary chiefs of the Gitanyow people are actively pursuing an Aboriginal title and rights claim that includes an area that overlaps with the Nisga’a Final Agreement. The concerns regard the decision of the Minister on the basis of a breach of the duty to consult. The lower court decision added an extra step to the Haida test in cases where there is an overlap between established treaty rights and ones yet unproven. The Court of Appeal rejects the need for any modification of the Haida test.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The Appellants are hereditary chiefs of the Gitanyow people [collectively as “Gitanyow”]. The Gitanyow have an outstanding claim for s. 35 Aboriginal rights in an area described as the Gitanyow Lax’yip.

The Nisga’a Treaty sets out the s. 35 rights of the Nisga’a. It provides that nothing in the Treaty affects any s. 35 rights for any Aboriginal people other than the Nisga’a Nation. The Nisga’a Treaty established a hunting area known as the Nass Wildlife Area where the Nisga’a have non-exclusive rights to hunt. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations [“Minister”], has certain decision-making responsibilities in relation to determining the total allowable harvest in the Nass Wildlife Area and the annual management plan which regulates Nisga’a citizens’ hunting. The nature and scope of the decision-making responsibilities are set out within the Nisga’a Treaty.

The Gitanyow Lax’yip overlaps with the Nass Wildlife Area. As a result, decisions made concerning the Nass Wildlife Area may have the potential for affecting activities within the Gitanyow Lax’yip. In order to protect the rights of Indigenous groups such as the Gitanyow pending claims resolution, the Crown has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate in circumstances where the Crown has knowledge of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it. This is known as the Haida test (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 CNLR 72).

This appeal concerns two decisions of the Minister made in 2016 approving the total allowable harvest of moose and the annual management plan for the 2016-2017 hunting season in the Nass Wildlife Area. Prior to making these decisions, the Minister had consulted with the Gitanyow concerning the total allowable harvest, but not concerning the annual management plan.

On judicial review, the chambers judge held that the duty to consult was not triggered by the approval of the annual management plan, and that the consultation in relation to the total allowable harvest was adequate. In reviewing these issues, the chambers judge concluded that the Haida test to determine the existence of a duty to consult was not adequate to deal with the circumstance where a conflicting treaty right was at issue. She concluded that the Haida test required modification to preclude a duty to consult an Indigenous group claiming s. 35 rights when the recognition of such a duty would be inconsistent with the Crown’s duties and responsibilities to the Indigenous peoples with whom it has a treaty. It is unnecessary, however, to modify the Haida test in order to recognize the limits of accommodation that treaty rights impose. The Haida test that has been applied consistently over the past 15 years has sufficient flexibility within it to encompass these issues.

Despite the conclusion that the modification of the Haida test was unnecessary, the Court does not consider that the reviewing judge erred in her fundamental approach to the issue before her. The analysis of the chambers judge properly focused on the three-part Haida test, and in particular the third element, which asks whether the proposed Crown conduct has the potential for affecting the claimed right. This is primarily a question of fact, to be reviewed on a deferential basis. Applying the Haida test, the Minister did not err in concluding that the duty to consult was not triggered in relation to the annual management plan. The consultation undertaken by the Minister in relation to the total allowable harvest was adequate in the circumstances.

‘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.

Fort McKay First Nation v Prosper Petroleum Ltd, 2020 ABCA 163

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal allowed. When administrative tribunals deal with “public interest” in respect to natural resource development, they should be looking at more than the duty to consult, as the honour of the Crown is a far broader doctrine. In this matter, the tribunal should have addressed an unfulfilled promise of a protected area that was being negotiated.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

This appeal arises out of negotiations that began in 2003 between the Government of Alberta and the Fort McKay First Nation [“FMFN”] to develop a Moose Lake Access Management Plan [“MLAMP”] to address the cumulative effects of oil sands development on the First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights. The MLAMP has not yet been finalized. The FMFN is an “[A]boriginal people of Canada” under s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and a “band” within the meaning of the Indian Act, that has treaty rights to hunt, fish and trap within the Moose Lake Area, part of its traditional territory. The Moose Lake Area is of cultural importance to the FMFN.

The Alberta Energy Regulator [“AER”] approved an application by Prosper Petroleum Ltd [“Prosper”] in 2018 for the Rigel bitumen recovery project [“Project”], which would be located within 5 kilometers of the FMFN’s Moose Lake Reserves. The AER approval is subject to authorization by the Lieutenant Governor in Council [“Cabinet”], which has yet to be granted.

The FMFN was granted permission to appeal on the question of whether the AER erred by failing to consider the honour of the Crown and refusing to delay approval of the Project until the FMFN’s negotiations with Alberta on the MLAMP are completed. FMFN is concerned that the ability of its members to pursue their traditional way of life in the Moose Lake Area has been severely and adversely affected by the cumulative effect of oil sands development in the surrounding area. FMFN specifically sought a 10 km buffer zone from oil sands development around the Moose Lake Reserves. Alberta denied this request and in 2013 FMFN applied for a review. In 2014, Alberta’s then Premier, the late Jim Prentice, met with Chief Jim Boucher of FMFN to discuss the MLAMP. In 2015, Premier Prentice and Chief Boucher signed a Letter of Intent to confirm “our mutual commitment and interest in an expedited completion of the [MLAMP]”. Despite the 2015 Letter of Intent, the MLAMP has still not been finalized and is the subject of ongoing negotiations between Alberta and the FMFN.

The Project would be located within the 10-kilometer buffer zone surrounding the Moose Lake Reserves; that is, within the area covered by the MLAMP. After previously suspending the Project, in 2016 the AER resumed the approval process for the Project because “MLAMP is still not finalized, there is no indication that finalization of the MLAMP is imminent and there is no certainty when submission of the plan will occur”. The AER issued its decision in 2018 that found the Project to be in the public interest and approved the Project on conditions, subject to authorization by Cabinet. The panel declined to consider the MLAMP negotiations that contemplated the 10-kilometer buffer zone, the 2015 Letter of Intent, and whether it implicates the honour of the Crown. The AER concluded the status of the MLAMP negotiations was not a valid reason to deny Prosper’s application.

To review this decision, the Court used the standard of correctness. The AER is a public agency which exercises adjudicative functions pursuant to the Alberta Public Agencies Governance Act. As the regulator of energy development in Alberta, the AER is mandated to provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in the province. It has final decision-making power over many energy project applications, pending where Cabinet authorization is required.

The AER has broad powers of inquiry to consider the “public interest” in making its decisions. Tribunals have the explicit powers conferred upon them by their constituent statutes. However, where empowered to consider questions of law, tribunals also have the implied jurisdiction to consider issues of constitutional law as they arise, absent a clear demonstration the legislature intended to exclude such jurisdiction (Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, [2010] 4 CNLR 250 [“Rio Tinto”]. This is all the more so where the tribunal is required to consider the “public interest”. In such circumstances, the regulatory agency has a duty to apply the Constitution and ensure its decision complies with s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc, 2017 SCC 40 [“Clyde River”]). As the Supreme Court of Canada [“SCC”] has noted, “[a] project authorization that breaches the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest” (Clyde River). The tribunal cannot ignore that aspect of its public interest mandate.

The AER therefore has a broad implied jurisdiction to consider issues of constitutional law, including the honour of the Crown, as part of its determination of whether an application is in the “public interest”. The question raised by this appeal is whether the AER should have considered the honour of the Crown in relation to the MLAMP negotiations as part of this assessment. A conclusion that legislation precludes considering certain matters does not relieve the decision-maker of its obligation if that legislative interpretation proves incorrect. Nor can a decision-maker decline to consider issues that fall within its legislative mandate because it feels the matter can be better addressed by another body.

The responsibility to ensure the honour of the Crown is upheld remains with the Crown (Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc, 2017 SCC 41). However, the Crown can determine how, and by whom, it will address its obligations to First Nations, meaning that aspects of its obligations can be delegated to regulatory bodies. Alberta has delegated procedural aspects of the duty to consult and to consider appropriate accommodation arising out of that consultation to the AER. The Government of Alberta has retained the responsibility to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation on AER-regulated projects. Are the matters that FMFN sought to put before the AER in relation to the MLAMP negotiations limited to the “adequacy of Crown consultation”? The Court finds they are not.

The honour of the Crown can give rise to duties beyond the duty to consult. It will give rise to different duties in different circumstances (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) [2005] 1 CNLR 72; Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40). In the present case, the honour of the Crown is implicated through treaty implementation (Manitoba Métis Federation Inc v Canada (AG), 2013 SCC 14; Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69). The honour of the Crown infuses the performance of every treaty obligation, and stresses the ongoing relationship between the Crown and First Nations brought on by the need to balance the exercise of treaty rights with development under Treaty 8.

There was no basis for the AER to decline to consider the MLAMP process as part of its assessment of the public interest rather than deferring the issue to Cabinet. The public interest mandate can and should encompass considerations of the effect of a project on [A]boriginal peoples, which in this case will include the state of negotiations between the FMFN and the Crown. To preclude such considerations entirely takes an unreasonably narrow view of what comprises the public interest, particularly given the direction to all government actors to foster reconciliation. The AER is directed to reconsider whether approval of the Project is in the public interest after taking into consideration the honour of the Crown and the MLAMP process.

George Gordon First Nation v HMQ in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan and Canada (AG), 2020 SKQB 90

Posted on by
Reply

Application dismissed. The Government of Saskatchewan was not subject to a duty to consult with the First Nation regarding further mineral dispositions, as this was satisfied with the processes stipulated in the Treaty Land Entitlement agreement.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

George Gordon First Nation [“GGFN”] initiated this action by statement of claim, naming as defendants Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan [“Saskatchewan”] and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada [“Canada”]. It claimed various relief, including an interim and permanent injunction against the defendants from granting further mineral dispositions in the Jansen Area or Evaporite Area, and ten billion dollars in damages. Where an Entitlement Band requests acquisition of Crown minerals, the Ministry places a temporary freeze on the minerals pending its review of the request. If approved, the freeze will continue to allow the Band time to acquire the surface rights. This freeze period can continue for up to three years.

This application had a long and complex history, but it had the benefit of case management by an experienced justice of this Court. The parties involved in this application are sophisticated and represented by experienced and able counsel. To determine if the summary judgement process was suitable to dispose of this matter, the Court answered three questions in the affirmative: 1) can the judge to make the necessary findings of fact; 2) can the judge to apply the law to the facts; and 3) if this is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7). This matter was determined suitable for summary judgment. A trial was not required to determine the issues.

The allegation is that both Saskatchewan and Canada had and have a duty to consult with GGFN before Saskatchewan makes any mineral disposition on lands which could be selected by GGFN to satisfy its treaty land entitlement. Canada and Saskatchewan argue there was, and is, no duty to consult. Saskatchewan also argues that the GGFN Treaty Land Entitlement agreement [“TLE”] was intended to conclude the dispute and barred any further claims, including this one.

Canada had a duty to consult with and, where proved, accommodate GGFN and other TLE Bands with respect to land claims under Treaty No. 4. This was done through treaty land entitlement negotiations and agreements, including the GGFN TLE. Saskatchewan had no corresponding duty to consult under Treaty No. 4. Saskatchewan’s obligations under the TLE were to Canada, not GGFN.

Canada and Saskatchewan satisfied any duty to consult through the negotiations leading to the TLE Framework Agreement and, in the case of GGFN, the negotiations resulting in the GGFN TLE. If Saskatchewan had a duty to consult with GGFN about Crown mineral dispositions, that duty was satisfied by its practice of providing information to TLE Bands. GGFN’s claim of a duty to consult that extended to both notice of any applications and a right to supersede those applications went beyond any required consultation and accommodation. This would amount to a veto which the courts have rejected.

Even without a duty to consult, the honour of the Crown would still apply to Saskatchewan’s implementation of the GGFN TLE. Saskatchewan’s practices were fair and balanced. The honour of the Crown, which did apply, was respected. GGFN received the payments to which it was entitled from Canada and was able to obtain within the prescribed period its shortfall acres and other land, with minerals.

The claim of GGFN against Saskatchewan is therefore dismissed. Its claim against Canada was based on a duty of Canada to compel or assist GGFN to enforce its claim against Saskatchewan. The foundation for this claim is lacking. Canada does not exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the provinces with respect to the exercise of their constitutional authority. Nor did the GGFN TLE provide a contractual basis for Canada to compel Saskatchewan to provide GGFN with the requested notice of mineral dispositions and right of first refusal. GGFN’s claim against Canada was premised on a breach of duty by Saskatchewan. Since the claim against Saskatchewan is dismissed, there is no basis for a claim against Canada.

 

 

Manitoba Metis Federation Inc v Brian Pallister et al, 2020 MBQB 49

Posted on by
Reply

Application for judicial review dismissed. The honour of the Crown does not entitle the Manitoba Métis Federation to any special procedural rights in relation to a Lieutenant Governor in Council’s policy decision in the circumstances of this case.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

This is an application for judicial review of the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s [“Cabinet”] decision to issue an Order in Council [“OIC”]. The Manitoba Métis Federation Inc [“MMF”] reasons for this application are that fundamental legal and constitutional issues and principles are at risk, including the honour of the Crown. The MMF contends that this is a case of first instance that is of significant importance to the MMF, Manitoba’s Crown corporations, as well as all Indigenous Peoples in Manitoba.

The OIC authorized the Minister of Crown Services to issue “A Directive to Manitoba Hydro Electric Board Respecting Agreements with Indigenous Groups and Communities” [“Directive”]. The Directive purports to seek to align the Government of Manitoba’s policies with the Manitoba Hydro Electric Board’s [“Hydro”] practices regarding all relationship and benefit agreements with Indigenous communities. It requires that any such agreements, including those being developed, either obtain ministerial approval or provide legally required mitigation or compensation measures that address thoroughly defined impacts.

The Court has determined that the honour of the Crown does not apply to the Directive. The Directive requires that relationship and benefit agreements with Indigenous groups provide legally required mitigation or compensation that will address thoroughly defined adverse impacts. If such is not provided, ministerial approval is needed. The Directive in question is a lawful exercise of Cabinet’s power to enforce its stewardship role over Hydro. The Cabinet’s authorization of the Directive and its involvement in, or effect on, the MMF’s negotiations with Hydro, does not engage or trigger the honour of the Crown and by extension, any of the duties that flow therefrom.

The Directive is a lawful and reasonable exercise of Cabinet’s statutory power to enforce its stewardship role over Hydro. Cabinet’s authorization of the Directive and any consequent involvement in or effect on the MMF’s negotiations with Hydro, do not engage the honour of the Crown. Neither the honour of the Crown nor the common law entitled the MMF to any special procedural rights in relation to a Cabinet policy decision in the circumstances of this case.