Category Archives: International Law

What Did the Court Mean When It Said that UNDRIP “has been incorporated into the country’s positive law”? Appellate Guidance or Rhetorical Flourish?

By: Nigel Bankes and Robert Hamilton

Case commented on: Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 (CanLII).

PDF Version: What Did the Court Mean When It Said that UNDRIP “has been incorporated into the country’s positive law”? Appellate Guidance or Rhetorical Flourish?

In its recent reference opinion on the validity of an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24 (the FNIM Act), the Supreme Court went out of its way to comment on the legal significance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14 (the federal UNDRIP Act). The Court did so notwithstanding that legal questions relating to the federal UNDRIP Act were not directly before it, and notwithstanding its own observations in the Reference to the effect that “[t]he task that falls to the Court in the context of a reference invites caution …” (at para 111). That it chose to comment at such length is even more remarkable when one reflects on how reticent the Court seems to have been to comment on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or Declaration), or international human rights law more generally, in other cases over the last two decades dealing with Indigenous rights. Continue reading →

The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

By: Robert Hamilton

Case Commented on: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

 PDF Version: The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

In the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Ref), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutionality of the federal environmental impact assessment regime. For analysis of what precise aspects of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) the majority found unconstitutional (and which it held were unproblematic), see the post by my colleagues Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David V. Wright here. Continue reading →

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

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. Continue reading →

Climate Racism in Canada

By: Anna-Maria Hubert and the students of Law 627: International Environmental Law

Matter commented on: U.N. Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), Views adopted by the Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3624/2019 (22 September 2022) UN Doc CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019

Legislation Commented On: “Bill C-226 – An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice,” 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022

Policy Commented On: Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy, Environment and Climate Change Canada, released for final comment on 24 November 2022

PDF Version: Climate Racism in Canada

People around the world are facing a range of struggles related to political, civil, social, and economic justice. Increasingly, this includes the fight for environmental well-being and the need for solutions to address the increasing threat of climate change on their daily lives. Continue reading →

Extraditing the Individual in the Meng Wanzhou Decision

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Extraditing the Individual in the Meng Wanzhou Decision

Case Commented On: United States v Meng, 2020 BCSC 785 (CanLII)

The arrest and extradition of Meng Wanzhou is extraordinary. The case has attracted global interest and has highlighted the fragility of our diplomatic networks. It has the workings of a suspense novel with its political intrigue, double-entendres and power struggles. It brings into question our global alliances and lays bare our international aspirations. But this is not a le Carré novel nor is it a strategic game of Risk. The case, at its heart, is not dissimilar to most extradition hearings in Canada. In all such cases, the stakes are high, international relations are engaged, and the rule of law is tested in both the surrendering state and the requesting one. Moreover, in all extradition cases there is an individual, a person who must either stay or go. To keep extradition at the level of the individual is hard, but it is critical to do so for both legal reasons and human ones.

This post keeps that individual, Meng Wanzhou, in mind. For it is Meng Wanzhou who faces serious criminal charges and for whom this extradition decision will have direct and serious consequences. That is why I am looking for the individual in this recent extradition decision rendered by Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes on the “double criminality” requirement, in which a person is extradited only when the conduct amounting to the criminal offence in the requesting state is also conduct amounting to a criminal offence in Canada. I am doing so because people matter, and because the law requires it.

Continue reading →