Category: Indigenous Page 3 of 5

The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

On October 5, 2023

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented on: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

This is the first of what we anticipate will be a series of posts on this important decision which involved a challenge to the implementation and/or constitutional validity of British Columbia’s hard rock mineral regime under the terms of the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292 [MTA]. Other posts will address the substance of the duty to consult and accommodate argument in the context of free entry regimes, as well as the sacred site issues discussed in the decision.

Counting Straws: Yahey v British Columbia and the Future of Cumulative Effects Management in Canada

By Martin Olszynski

On July 13, 2023

In Aboriginal, Environmental, Indigenous, Land Use

By: Martin Olszynski

Case Commented On: Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Counting Straws: Yahey v British Columbia and the Future of Cumulative Effects Management in Canada

Much has already been written about the British Columbia Supreme Court’s ground-breaking decision in Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287 (CanLII) (also referred to as Blueberry River First Nation, BRFN, or simply Blueberry throughout). In Yahey, the Court agreed with the BRFN that, in the context of BFRN’s traditional territory in Northeastern British Columbia, “the cumulative effects of industrial development authorized by [British Columbia] have significantly diminished the ability of Blueberry members to exercise their rights to hunt, fish and trap in their territory as part of their way of life and therefore constitute an infringement of their treaty rights” (at para 3). My colleague Professor Robert Hamilton and former UCalgary Law JD student (now alumnus) Nick Ettinger wrote two outstanding blogs on the decision when it first came out: a first post summarized the decision, while a second focused on Yahey’s standard for treaty infringement, i.e., “meaningful diminishment”. They also published a law review article on the decision: Robert Hamilton and Nicholas P. Ettinger, “The Future of Treaty Interpretation in Yahey v British Columbia: Clarification on Cumulative Effects, Common Intentions, and Treaty Infringement,” 2023 54-1 Ottawa L Rev 109. In this (very) belated post spurred on by a presentation that I gave at an environmental law conference last month, I focus on the Court’s findings with respect to British Columbia’s approach to resource development, and specifically its failure to effectively manage the cumulative effects associated with oil and gas and forestry. In my view, and as further set out below, these findings and analysis are relevant to every level of government in Canada: federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, and municipal.

Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy: A New Roadmap in a Long Journey

By David V Wright

On May 31, 2023

In Aboriginal, Indigenous

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy

PDF Version: Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy: A New Roadmap in a Long Journey

After years of requests and proposals from Indigenous Modern Treaty parties, the federal government has released Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy. This is the latest development in a series of law and policy reforms introduced by the federal government in this area in recent years. The main purpose of the new policy is to “support the full, effective, and timely implementation of all current and future Modern Treaties in Canada, with the specific goal of advancing a systemic shift in institutional culture” (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, News Release, “Modern Treaty Partners and Canada Launch Co-Developed Policy to Transform Intergovernmental Relationships” (28 February 2023)). This short post explains the context into which the new Policy enters and provides a succinct overview of its contents.

Duty to Consult, Honour of the Crown, Project Assessment, and Land-Use Planning in a Modern Treaty Context: More Clarity from the Supreme Court of the Yukon

By David V Wright

On May 25, 2023

In Aboriginal, Energy, Indigenous, Natural Resources

By: David Wright

Matter Commented On: First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun v Yukon (Government of), 2023 YKSC 5 (CanLII) (Metallic Minerals)

PDF Version: Duty to Consult, Honour of the Crown, Project Assessment, and Land-Use Planning in a Modern Treaty Context: More Clarity from the Supreme Court of the Yukon

The duty to consult and accommodate is now a mature area of jurisprudence, including case law that is “replete with indicia” (Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34 (CanLII) at para 41) of what constitutes meaningful consultation. One area that continues to evolve, however, is Crown consultation obligations and the honour of the Crown in modern treaty contexts. The landmark Supreme Court of Canada cases of Beckman v Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)) and First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun v Yukon (2017 SCC 58 (CanLII)), both originating from lower courts in the Yukon, set out the contours of this legal landscape, but some uncertainty remains. In First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun v Yukon (Government of), 2023 YKSC 5 (CanLII) (Metallic Minerals), the Supreme Court of Yukon (YKSC) provides helpful judicial interpretation and observations in this area. In particular, Chief Justice Suzanne M. Duncan clarifies the law with respect to the Honour of the Crown and the duty to consult and accommodate in context of project-level assessment and land-use planning in the Yukon. This short post provides an overview of the case, as well as brief commentary regarding key points.

First Arbitration Award under the Nunavut Agreement

By Nigel Bankes

On May 11, 2023

In Aboriginal, Arbitration, Indigenous

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: Arbitration Award in The Inuit of Nunavut as represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated v His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and The Commissioner of Nunavut as represented by the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Nunavut as represented by the Premier of Nunavut, and the Government of Nunavut, Initial Decision, March 25, 2023.

PDF Version: First Arbitration Award under the Nunavut Agreement

This is the first Arbitration Award under the revised dispute resolution provisions of the Nunavut Agreement (1993). The Nunavut Agreement is the constitutionally protected land claims agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Governments of Canada (GoC) and Nunavut (GN). In this Award, the Honourable Constance Hunt, acting as the sole arbitrator, has issued a series of declarations concluding that Inuit Employment Plans (IEPs) prepared by each of the GN and GoC fell short of the obligations of government under the terms of Article 23 of the Nunavut Agreement (NA). Article 23 of the NA is entitled “Inuit Employment within Government”.