Author: Robert Hamilton Page 1 of 3

BA (St. Thomas University), JD (University of New Brunswick); LLM (York University); PhD (University of Victoria). Associate Professor.

Cases Commented On: JD Irving, Limited et al v Wolastoqey Nation, 2025 NBCA 129 CanLII; Wolastoqey Nations v New Brunswick and Canada, et al., 2024 NBKB 203 CanLII.

PDF Version: The New Brunswick Court of Appeal Weighs in on Aboriginal Title and Private Lands

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal just delivered an important decision on the relationship between Aboriginal title and private property, concluding that declarations of Aboriginal title are not available where lands have been granted to private landowners. The practical and doctrinal implications are significant and could have impacts across the country. The Wolastoqey have indicated they intended to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Treaty-Making in Australia and Considerations for Canada

By Robert Hamilton

On October 22, 2025

In Indigenous, Reconciliation, Treaty Rights

By: Robert Hamilton and Harry Hobbs

Matter Commented On: Victoria’s Statewide Treaty and Statewide Treaty Bill 2025

PDF Version: Treaty-Making in Australia and Considerations for Canada

Indigenous peoples in Australia have long sought to establish treaty relationships with the state. While important advocacy efforts such as the 1988 Barunga Statement and the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 2000 failed to lead to negotiations at the national level, a statewide treaty was recently signed in the state of Victoria. The first formal Indigenous treaty ever negotiated in Australian history, the Victorian Statewide Treaty is a novel model of treaty that is worth considering closely in Canada, particularly as Indigenous peoples and federal, provincial, and territorial governments continue to look for productive ways to implement historic and modern treaty promises and craft novel forms of agreement. Creative thinking is required to take steps to meet the Crown’s constitutional obligations to diligently implement treaty promises, proactively assess and manage cumulative impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, meaningfully implement modern treaty and self-government agreements, and satisfy its obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Recent discussions about the relationship between treaty rights and a secession referendum in Alberta (which one of us discussed here) also illustrate the importance of thinking creatively about the relationship between Indigenous self-determination, treaty rights, and other democratic state process and institutions. This blog summarizes Victoria’s Statewide Treaty and the proposed bill that will implement it.

The Alberta Court of Appeal Weighs in on the use of AI in Court Submissions

By Robert Hamilton

On October 15, 2025

In Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and the Legal Profession, Uncategorized

By: Robert Hamilton

Cases Commented On: Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Alberta Court of Appeal Weighs in on the use of AI in Court Submissions

In Reddy v Saroya, the Alberta Court of Appeal had the opportunity to comment on the use of Artificial Intelligence in court submissions when considering a case wherein counsel had filed a factum containing multiple AI-fabricated citations. This is the latest warning for lawyers, following cases such as Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285 (CanLII) (Zhang) and Ko v Li, 2025 ONSC 2965 (CanLII) (Ko), that AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot reliably prepare legal materials and should not be used to that end. These tools can be used to gain efficiencies and will surely have an increasingly important role in legal practice moving forward, but lawyers, legal academics, and law students who use them must understand their limits. Reddy shows the cost of forgetting that.

“Get the province of Alberta in line”: Treaty Promises, Provincial Power, and the Role of Indigenous Nations in Discussions on Alberta Secession

By Robert Hamilton

On May 30, 2025

In Aboriginal, Indigenous

By: Robert Hamilton

Matter Commented On: Alberta Separatism

PDF Version: “Get the province of Alberta in line”: Treaty Promises, Provincial Power, and the Role of Indigenous Nations in Discussions on Alberta Secession

With the Liberals forming a minority government in last month’s election, and a small but vocal contingent of Albertans seemingly enamoured with President Trump’s suggestion that Canada become a state, the possible secession of Alberta is in the news cycle again. In 2019, the possibility of western separation made headlines as Jack Mintz and others made the case for the benefits to Alberta (see here). Premier Danielle Smith has given oxygen to the renewed debate by introducing legislation that would lower the threshold for initiating provincial referenda. While she has denied supporting separation, her moves, including her participation at a pro-separation rally held at the Alberta legislature on May 3 and her statement that she will put the issue to a referendum if it gathers enough support, have energized the movement. This has drawn responses from Indigenous Nations across the province. Recently proposed amendments which would add a non-derogation clause purporting to protect treaty rights (discussed by Nigel Bankes in a forthcoming post) has done little to reduce opposition.

Teaching Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

By Robert Hamilton

On March 13, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Statutory Interpretation, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Robert Hamilton, Jennifer Koshan, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Teaching Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

It has been a year since the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII), and many of us are still grappling with how to include Dickson in our teaching materials. For those teaching international law, or the interplay between Canadian law, Indigenous law, and international law, this previous post might be a useful summary of Dickson’s commentary (or lack thereof) on the legal significance of Canada’s adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In this post, we deal with another important issue – whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in the context of modern treaties, or at least in the context of the treaty and surrounding documents that governed the dispute between Cindy Dickson and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (VGFN). We provide a summary and critique of the judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue, which concern the interpretation and application of section 32(1) of the Charter in light of constitutional text, history, and precedents as applied to the facts at hand. The majority judgment of Justices Nicolas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal provide an excellent summary of previous jurisprudence on section 32(1) and could replace a swath of case law on the constitutional law syllabus. But the concurring judgment of Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin, and the dissenting judgment of Justice Malcolm Rowe, are also worthy of discussion given their insights on the complexities of debates surrounding the issue of Charter application. We hope that this summary of the various judgments and our commentary on those judgments will be helpful for those teaching constitutional law and adjacent subjects. We also plan to write a second post focusing on the section 15(1) and section 25 Charter issues in Dickson.