Category: Aboriginal Page 5 of 30

By: Kerry Wilkins

Case Commented On: Renvoi à la Cour d’appel du Québec relatif à la Loi concernant les enfants, les jeunes et les familles des Premières Nations, des Inuits et des Métis, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII) (unofficial English translation) (Reference)

PDF Version: With a Little Help from the Feds: Incorporation by Reference and Bill C-92

According to section 18 of An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24 (Act or the Act), “[t]he inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, including legislative authority in relation to those services and authority to administer and enforce laws made under that legislative authority” and “the authority to provide for dispute resolution mechanisms.” As it turns out, the Quebec Court of Appeal tells us in the recent Reference about the Act’s validity (now under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; you can read Robert Hamilton’s summary of the decision here), there is indeed such a right, but not because Parliament says so (Reference, at paras 451-453, 514).

The Inherent Indigenous Right of Self-Government

By Kent McNeil

On May 4, 2022

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, Provincial Court

By: Kent McNeil

Matter Commented On: Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII) [Quebec Reference, quotations from the unofficial English translation]

PDF Version: The Inherent Indigenous Right of Self-Government

In this Quebec Reference, the Attorney General of Quebec challenged the constitutional validity of the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c24. This statute acknowledges that the Indigenous peoples of Canada have an inherent right of self-government, which includes jurisdiction over child and family services and is recognized and affirmed by section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Quebec Court of Appeal (CA) rejected Quebec’s contention that this statute is beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament. The Act’s pith and substance, the CA said, is to ensure the well-being of Indigenous children, and this is clearly within Parliament’s jurisdiction over “Indians” in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The CA also decided that the Act does not amend the Constitution by acknowledging the inherent right of self-government because this right is already an Aboriginal right within section 35(1). The constitutional validity of the Act was therefore upheld, with the exception of two provisions that would have given some Indigenous laws relating to family matters absolute paramountcy over provincial laws. This decision is now on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This comment focuses on the CA’s decision on the existence and nature of the inherent right of self-government. It addresses the question of whether this aspect of the decision is consistent with Supreme Court case law, especially R v Pamajewon, 1996 CanLII 161 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 821, the only case in which the Court has addressed the issue of Indigenous self-government directly.

Is the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families Constitutional?

By Robert Hamilton

On April 28, 2022

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous

By: Robert Hamilton

PDF Version: Is the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families Constitutional?

Case Commented On: Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII) [quotations from the unofficial English translation]

Legislation Commented On: Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24

The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24, [the Act] received royal assent on June 21, 2019, and came into force on January 1, 2020. The Act was developed over two years and through wide-ranging consultations. It is designed to gradually transfer control of child and family services to Indigenous nations and, through this, to ensure that fewer Indigenous children are removed from their families and communities. The intention is to mitigate the effects of the assimilationist policies that have been incredibly harmful to Indigenous children, families, and communities. The Act seeks to accomplish this by establishing national standards for the provision of child and family services and by providing a mechanism through which Indigenous laws – that is, the laws of Indigenous nations themselves – can take priority over inconsistent federal and provincial laws and govern the delivery of child and family services to Indigenous peoples (Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII), paras 4-5 [Reference]). Although it has faced thoughtful and considered criticism, it is clear the Act seeks to substantially change how child and family services are provided and to transition the governance and regulation of those services to Indigenous peoples.

If A Land Claims Agreement Says That You Must Resolve The Dispute Through Arbitration, Then That’s What You Must Do

By Nigel Bankes

On March 31, 2022

In Aboriginal

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: If A Land Claims Agreement Says That You Must Resolve The Dispute Through Arbitration, Then That’s What You Must Do

Case Commented On: Newfoundland and Labrador v Nunatsiavut Government, 2022 NLCA 19 (CanLII)

If a land claims agreement says that you must resolve the dispute through arbitration, then that’s what you must do. That’s the blunt (and perhaps obvious) conclusion of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in this decision involving the terms of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Agreement).

There could be little doubt that the Agreement did in fact stipulate that a dispute of this nature (a dispute relating to the determination and sharing of revenues from the Voisey’s Bay project) must be referred to arbitration (see the combined effect of ss 7.6.9 and 21.9.1of the Agreement, as discussed at paras 34 -52). But in this case, the Nunatsiavut government had submitted the dispute to the provincial superior court, and the provincial government had failed to take any objection to that course of action; until it lost at trial (Nunatsiavut Government v Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 129 (CanLII))and the matter went on appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Indigenous Rights and Private Party Liability

By Kent McNeil

On January 26, 2022

In Aboriginal, Torts

By: Kent McNeil

PDF Version: Indigenous Rights and Private Party Liability

Matter Commented On: Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc, 2022 BCSC 15 (CanLII)

To what extent can private parties be held liable in tort law, specifically nuisance, for damage done to Indigenous rights? This was the issue in Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc, 2022 BCSC 15 (CanLII) [Thomas]. In 1952, the Aluminum Company of Canada (now Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., or RTA) completed construction of a dam on the Nechako River in west-central British Columbia to generate electricity for its aluminum smelting operations. Construction of the dam had been authorized by agreements with and a licence from British Columbia pursuant to a provincial statute, the Industrial Development Act, SBC 1949, c 31, which had been enacted to facilitate construction of the hydroelectric dam (Thomas, paras 66-69). The company has abided by all the conditions of the agreements and the licence.