Category Archives: Aboriginal

Duty to consult application is premature – what’s the big deal?

PDF version: Duty to consult application is premature – what’s the big deal?

Case and decision commented on: Metis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012 ABCA 352 and decision of the Joint Review Panel

 In this decision Justice Slatter denied the application of the Metis Nation and of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) for leave to appeal the decision of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) constituted to deal with Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion Project application.  In its decision the JRP concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to assess whether or not the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult with respect to the Jackpine Mine Project.  In the alternative, the JRP concluded that any application to assess whether or not the Crown had fulfilled its constitutional obligation was premature.  The JRP is established by federal\provincial executive agreement and has the responsibility of discharging obligations under both the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19 and the responsibilities of the provincial Energy Resources Conservation Board under a number of statues including the Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-7 – all with respect to the Jackpine Mine expansion project.

Continue reading →

Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?

PDF version: Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?

Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.

In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 (hereafter LD) the ERCB decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) in situ bitumen project (the Taiga Project). Continue reading →

The implications of the Tsilhqot’in Case for the Numbered Treaties

PDF version: The implications of the Tsilhqot’in Case for the Numbered Treaties

Cases Considered: Williams v British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285, and Lameman v Alberta, 2012 ABQB 195

The unanimous decision of the British Columbia in Williams, (a.k.a. the Tsilhqot’in land claim case or the Brittany Triangle case) continues the trend in Canadian case law (beginning with R v Marshall; R v Bernard, 2005 SCR 43) of insisting that a claimant First Nation or other aboriginal people must establish exclusive occupation of particular tracts of land in order to obtain a declaration of aboriginal title.  Indeed, the case comes close to suggesting, and as a matter of law, that a claimant people will hardly ever\never succeed on the basis of what the court describes as a territorial claim (at para 219) i.e. the claim that these lands (e.g. a particular watershed) are our lands because we were present in that territory (at para 206), living in accordance with our laws (including property laws) and using that territory to the exclusion of all others.

Continue reading →

Disgorgement Damages Awarded against Canada for Breach of a Modern Land Claim Agreement

PDF version: Disgorgement Damages Awarded against Canada for Breach of a Modern Land Claim Agreement

Case commented on: NTI v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 NUCJ 11

In this important case Justice Earl Johnson in the Nunavut Court of Justice has granted summary judgement against Canada in the amount of $14,817,500 for breach of Article 12.7.6 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) which provided for the establishment of a monitoring program to cover “the long term state and health of the ecosystemic and socio-economic environment in the Nunavut Settlement Area.”  Justice Johnson assessed damages on a disgorgement basis calculated by reference to the expenditures that Canada avoided making by failing to implement this provision of the NLCA in a timely way.  In doing so the judgement draws upon the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v Blake, [2001] 1 AC 268 (HL).

Continue reading →

Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala

PDF version: Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala 

Case considered: Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala First Nation v British Columbia (Environment), 2011 BCSC 620 (“Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala“)

In the Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala case, Madam Justice Fisher was faced with a different type of duty to consult and accommodate issue.

While this is a British Columbia case it demonstrates even more the differences between British Columbia Court’s treatment of the duty to consult and accommodate and Alberta Courts (see here). Further it distinguishes the recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Tsuu T’ina Nation v Alberta (Minister of Environment), 2010 ABCA 137 on, I would suggest somewhat arguable distinctions (see here). Finally, this decision also distinguishes the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in R v Lefthand, 2007 ABCA 206.

In the Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala, the petitioners sought judicial review of the Minister’s refusal to recommend a boundary variation of a conservation area that encompassed the First Nation’s traditional lands in order to accommodate a proposed hydro-electric power project (the “Project”). The twist was that the petitioners Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala First Nation (“First Nation”) and Kleana Power Corporation (“Kleana”), the nominal project proponent, were seeking the variation.

Continue reading →