Category: Aboriginal Page 12 of 30

Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: The Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

On October 30, 2017

In Aboriginal, State Responses to Violence

By: Elysa Darling

PDF Version: Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: The Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

Legislation Commented On: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, SC 2013, c 20

This blog post accompanies a series of posts written by Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan on Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence. The series examines the legal uncertainties facing landlords and property managers seeking to respond to domestic violence involving their tenants, as identified in the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (CPLEA) report on Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers.

As section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, places “Indians and Lands reserved for Indians” within federal jurisdiction, provincial laws regarding leases and matrimonial property are inapplicable on designated reserve land (for more details on the inapplicability of provincial regulations on reserve in a lease context, see here). The Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5, does not, however, provide for any laws dealing with matrimonial real property on reserve lands. As a result, indigenous persons and communities were left without any recourse regarding property (owned or leased) upon the death of a spouse or the breakdown of a marriage or common-law relationship. The federal government sought to fill this gap in 2013 with the passage of the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, SC 2013, c 20 (FHRMIRA). This Act governs the actions of tenants and landlords dealing with domestic violence in reserve communities.

Reconciling the Application of the Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine to Aboriginal Title and Lands Reserved

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 17, 2017

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Property

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Reconciling the Application of the Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine to Aboriginal Title and Lands Reserved

Case Commented On: McCaleb v Rose, 2017 BCCA 318 (CanLII)

It is a challenge to teach the interjurisdictional immunity (IJI) doctrine these days, in part because the Supreme Court of Canada has been sending mixed, incomplete, and frankly off the cuff messages about the use of this doctrine. IJI has predominantly been applied so as to render provincial laws inapplicable to federal works, undertakings and other federally regulated persons and entities when they impair the core of the federal power over those entities (although the Supreme Court of Canada left the door open for IJI to apply to federal laws that impair provincial entities in Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (CanLII)). The Court signalled in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta, 2007 SCC 22 (CanLII), that generally the use of the doctrine should be minimized since it is redolent of more rigid approaches to constitutional law that favour “watertight compartments” rather than the more modern cooperative federalism approach. Canadian Western Bank tells us that IJI issues are to be analysed only if the case can’t be resolved on the basis of validity or paramountcy, although the Court has often neglected that progression in cases subsequent to Canadian Western Bank (see e.g. Quebec (Attorney General) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC 39 (CanLII)).

The Intersection of Discretionary Powers, Fiduciary Duties, the Public Interest and the Standard of Review

By Nigel Bankes

On October 3, 2017

In Aboriginal, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Intersection of Discretionary Powers, Fiduciary Duties, the Public Interest and the Standard of Review

Case Commented On: Coldwater Indian Band v Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2017 FCA 199 (CanLII)

In this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal, by a majority (per Justice Eleanor Dawson, Justice Donald Rennie concurring; Justice Wyman Webb, dissenting), concluded that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development breached the fiduciary duty he owed to the Coldwater Indian Band when he approved the assignment of a pipeline right of way easement of 1955 from one affiliate of Kinder Morgan Canada Inc to another affiliate without taking steps to improve the terms of the bargain or at least to ensure that the Crown had been vigilant in its continuing fiduciary obligation to preserve and protect the Band’s interest in the reserve land from an exploitive or improvident bargain. Since the matter came before the Court as an application for judicial review, the Court set aside the Minister’s decision and returned the matter to the Minister for redetermination in accordance with the Court’s reasons. An earlier application by the Band to prevent the Minister from granting approval to the assignment had been dismissed by the Federal Court on the basis that that the application was premature; see the decision in Coldwater Indian Band v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2014 FCA 277 (CanLII). For my earlier post on those proceedings see here.

Clyde River and Chippewas of the Thames: Some Clarifications Provided But Some Challenges Remain

By Nigel Bankes

On August 4, 2017

In Aboriginal, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Clyde River and Chippewas of the Thames: Some Clarifications Provided But Some Challenges Remain

Cases Commented On: Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40 (CanLII) and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered judgment in two cases involving the National Energy Board (NEB) and the duty to consult Indigenous communities. One decision, Clyde River, involves an authorization granted to Petroleum Geo-Services Inc (PGS) to conduct marine seismic testing in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait under the terms of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, RSC 1985, c O-7 (COGOA). The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Crown had failed to discharge its duty to consult and accommodate and that as a result the NEB authorization should be quashed. The second decision, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (CTFN), involves an order by the NEB under s 58 of the National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985, c N-7 (NEBA) exempting Enbridge Pipelines Inc (Enbridge) from the need to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity under s 52 of NEBA and at the same time amending the operation of part of Line 9 (Line 9B), to authorize reversing the flow of the line, increasing its capacity and allowing for the transportation of heavy crude. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Crown was entitled to rely on the procedures adopted by the NEB in engaging with CTFN to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate and that those procedures in this case were adequate.

The Federal Response to the Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of the National Energy Board

By Nigel Bankes

On July 14, 2017

In Aboriginal, Energy, Environmental

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Federal Response to the Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of the National Energy Board

Document Commented On: Environmental and Regulatory Reviews, Discussion Paper, Government of Canada, June 2017

Professor Mascher has provided an overview of this Discussion Paper. This post highlights how the Discussion Paper responds to the Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of the National Energy Board. This is not a straightforward task for two reasons. First, while the Discussion Paper contains one page that is devoted to “modern energy regulation” (at 20) there are references throughout the document that are perhaps also relevant to the National Energy Board (NEB) as well as the other regulatory processes that are under review. Second, and more importantly (and as has already been highlighted by Professor Mascher), the Discussion Paper is not directly responsive to the Report of the Expert Panel. While there are a few quotations from the Expert Panel Report (and from the other review processes) scattered through the Discussion Paper there is no systematic tabulation of Expert Panel recommendations against the responses of the Government of Canada with perhaps (no doubt wishful thinking on my part) some supporting reasoning. Instead, all that we have is a set of high level proposals.