Category Archives: Aboriginal

Leave to Intervene Denied to Métis Nation in Case Involving Disinterment of RCMP

Cases Considered: Johnston v. Alberta (Vital Statistics), 2008 ABCA 2, Johnston v. Alberta (Director of Vital Statistics, 2007 ABCA 394, Johnston v. Alberta (Director of Vital Statistics), 2007 ABQB 597

PDF Version: Leave to Intervene Denied to Métis Nation in Case Involving Disinterment of RCMP

The case concerning Constable Lionide (Leo) Johnston’s place of burial has been before the Alberta courts a number of times, and has received a fair degree of media attention. Constable Johnston was one of four RCMP officers killed in the line of duty on March 3, 2005 near Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

Continue reading →

Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

Cases Considered: Siksika First Nation v. Alberta (Director Southern Region Environment) 2007 ABCA 402

PDF Version: Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

The Town of Strathmore faced a sewage problem. It proposed to deal with that problem by constructing a pipeline and disposing of some of its waste water into the Bow above the Siksika Reserve. Not surprisingly the Siksika took a dim view of this and when the Director approved the town’s application under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12, the Siksika appealed that decision to Alberta’s Environmental Appeal Board (the EAB). The Siksika also sought judicial review arguing amongst other things that the government of Alberta was in breach of its constitutional duty to consult the Nation. Justice Peter McInytre (oral reasons for judgement, available on the EAB’s website ) rejected the Siksika’s JR application on the grounds that the Siksika’s application was premature and therefore moot (because they might succeed before the EAB). In addition Justice McIntyre reasoned that the EAB procedure (and subsequent consideration of the EAB decision by the Minister) might cure any defect (want of consultation) there might have been in the Director’s procedure. There is no suggestion that Justice McIntyre rejected the application on the basis that the Siksika had not exhausted their local remedies.

Continue reading →