Category Archives: Aboriginal

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 2.10 and Intervenor Status

Case commented on: R. v. Hirsekorn, 2011 ABQB 156

R. v. Hirsekorn is a summary conviction appeal of convictions for shooting wildlife not in regular season and being in possession of wildlife without a valid permit, contrary to ss. 25(1) and 55(1) of the Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c. W-10. At trial, Provincial Court Judge F. C. Fisher rejected Hirsekorn’s argument that the charges should be dismissed because he had an unextinguished Métis right to hunt for food under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (see 2010 ABPC 385). The Blood Tribe and Siksika Nation applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench for intervenor status in the appeal.

Continue reading →

The world wide web and the honour of the Crown

PDF version: The world wide web and the honour of the Crown 

Cases considered: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Minister of Energy), 2011 ABCA 29, and Lameman v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 40

The Court of Appeal (Justices Ritter, Bielby and Read) has denied the appeal by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) against the judgement at trial (2009 ABQB 576) which I blogged here. In that decision, Justice D.R.G. Thomas held that ACFN had commenced its application more than six months after the relevant decision, and therefore out of time within the meaning of Rule 753.11 of the old Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968. In doing so I think that the Court of Appeal has ignored the constitutional foundation of the duty to consult and as a result has failed to interpret the Rules of Court through that lens.

Continue reading →

Interpreting Section 15(2) of the Charter: LEAF’s Intervention in Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Interpreting Section 15(2) of the Charter: LEAF’s Intervention in Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham 

Cases Commented On: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), et al. v Barbara Cunningham, et al. (Alberta) (Civil) (By Leave) Case number 33340, on appeal from Cunningham v Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 239

The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the appeal of the Alberta government in Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham on Thursday, December 16, 2010. Cunningham will be the first case in which the Supreme Court considers the application of section 15(2) of the Charter since that Court gave independent meaning to section 15(2) in R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 and the first case in which the Court must consider the possible application of section 15(2) when the challenge is on the basis of under-inclusiveness. This comment is based on my experience serving on the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) case subcommittee in Cunningham, the factum filed by LEAF, and, to a much lesser extent and only to offer a contrast, the facta of the Appellants and the Attorney General of Ontario.

Continue reading →

Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate

PDF version: Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate 

Case commented on: Beckman v Little/Salmon Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53

This is the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to deal head on with the relationship between the terms of a constitutionally protected land claims agreement (LCA) and the duty to consult and accommodate. The Court holds that the terms of an LCA do not exhaust the Crown’s duty to consult, or, to put it another way, an LCA is not a complete code but is embedded in the general legal system embracing both constitutional law norms and administrative law norms. This means that the Crown may have consultation obligations that are additive to those found in the text of an LCA. However, the majority articulates a narrow view of the content of the duty to consult and thus it was easy for the Court to find that the Crown — here the Government of Yukon (YTG) — had satisfied its obligations. In my view the content of the duty to consult articulated by the Court in this case is no greater than that which would be provided by the application of standard principles of administrative law. This impoverished view of the duty to consult is hardly likely to contribute to the constitutional goal of inter-societal reconciliation.

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult

PDF version: The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult 

Case considered: Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43

In the 1950s British Columbia authorized Alcan to develop the Nechako and Kemano Rivers for power purposes to supply Alcan’s aluminum facility at Kitimat. This development occurred in the traditional territory of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) First Nations. There was no consultation at that time. Since then Alcan has sold excess power from its facilities to BC Hydro (a Crown corporation) and in 2007 the parties negotiated an energy purchase agreement (EPA) to cover the period up until 2034. Sales have been growing in recent years as Alcan has found it more profitable to generate electricity than make aluminum: Kitimat (District) v. British Columbia (Minister of Energy and Mines), 2008 BCCA 81.

Continue reading →