Category: Treaty Rights Page 1 of 2

Case Commented On: Wesley v Alberta, 2024 ABCA 276 (CanLII), leave to appeal denied, Stoney Indian Band, et al. v His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Alberta, et al., 2025 CanLII 44340 (SCC)

PDF Version: The Application of Provincial Statutes of Limitation to Indigenous Claims

The application of provincial statutes of limitation to Indigenous rights claims has become a major issue in recent years (for detailed discussion, see Kent McNeil & Thomas Enns, “Procedural Injustice: Indigenous Claims, Limitation Periods, and Laches” (2022) All Papers (McNeil & Enns). Because many of these claims are based on alleged wrongs committed long in the past, both the provincial and federal governments often rely on the expiry of statutory limitation periods and the equitable doctrine of laches to prevent them from ever being decided on their merits. The Supreme Court has generally accepted the limitations defence insofar as claims for substantive relief such as damages are concerned, but has ruled that declarations of Crown wrongdoing that are designed to promote negotiations, without entailing any consequential remedial relief, are not barred by limitation periods (e.g. see Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (CanLII); Shot Both Sides v Canada, 2024 SCC 12 (CanLII)). The Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Wesley v Alberta, 2024 ABCA 276 (Wesley ABCA), is a recent example of the application of limitation periods that, in my view, reveals a persistent lack of willingness by the courts to give serious consideration to the constitutional issues at stake.

Treaty-Making in Australia and Considerations for Canada

By Robert Hamilton

On October 22, 2025

In Indigenous, Reconciliation, Treaty Rights

By: Robert Hamilton and Harry Hobbs

Matter Commented On: Victoria’s Statewide Treaty and Statewide Treaty Bill 2025

PDF Version: Treaty-Making in Australia and Considerations for Canada

Indigenous peoples in Australia have long sought to establish treaty relationships with the state. While important advocacy efforts such as the 1988 Barunga Statement and the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 2000 failed to lead to negotiations at the national level, a statewide treaty was recently signed in the state of Victoria. The first formal Indigenous treaty ever negotiated in Australian history, the Victorian Statewide Treaty is a novel model of treaty that is worth considering closely in Canada, particularly as Indigenous peoples and federal, provincial, and territorial governments continue to look for productive ways to implement historic and modern treaty promises and craft novel forms of agreement. Creative thinking is required to take steps to meet the Crown’s constitutional obligations to diligently implement treaty promises, proactively assess and manage cumulative impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, meaningfully implement modern treaty and self-government agreements, and satisfy its obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Recent discussions about the relationship between treaty rights and a secession referendum in Alberta (which one of us discussed here) also illustrate the importance of thinking creatively about the relationship between Indigenous self-determination, treaty rights, and other democratic state process and institutions. This blog summarizes Victoria’s Statewide Treaty and the proposed bill that will implement it.

Provincial Referendum Legislation, Citizen-Led Secession Proposals, and Non-Derogation Clauses

By Nigel Bankes

On June 11, 2025

In Constitutional, Indigenous, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Bill Commented On: Bill 54, Election Statutes Amendment Act

PDF Version: Provincial Referendum Legislation, Citizen-Led Secession Proposals, and Non-Derogation Clauses

In the dying hours of this last Legislative Session the Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery introduced a series of amendments (Amendment # A6, adopted May 14, 2025 and Hansard at 3494) to Bill 54, the Election Statutes Amendment Act. This is the Bill that will make it easier for parties to call for a citizen-led secession reference. One of the amendments related to proposed changes to the province’s Referendum Act, RSA 2000, c R-8.4. The amendment (the non-derogation clause or amendment) purports to clarify that:

Nothing in a referendum held under this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Modern Treaties, Shared Territories and Party Status in Aboriginal Title Litigation

By Nigel Bankes

On September 23, 2024

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Malii v British Columbia, 2024 BCSC 85 (CanLII), aff’d Nisg?a’a Nation v Malii, 2024 BCCA 313 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Modern Treaties, Shared Territories and Party Status in Aboriginal Title Litigation

Overlapping claims and shared territories present challenges in the negotiation of modern treaties that are best worked out by the Indigenous Nations themselves, drawing on their own laws and protocols. But this does not always prove possible and one party or another may initiate litigation in the courts of the settler state. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon and there are now dozens of cases dealing with overlapping claims or shared territories in the context of modern treaty negotiations. One group of cases deals with the scenario in which Nation A is moving to finalize a modern treaty with the Crown, while Nation B takes the view that the territory encompassed by the proposed treaty is territory that Nation B also used more or less intensively. Nation B therefore files a competing claim and also seeks injunctive relief to prevent finalization or ratification of the proposed treaty. The courts have typically rejected applications for injunctive relief and the substantive claims may drag on for years if not decades. A case in point is the Benoanie litigation in which the applicant Nations with reserves in Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan sought to enjoin ratification of the Nunavut Agreement: Fond du Lac Band et al v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, 1992 CanLII 2404 (FC).

Restoule: Tugging on the Rope and the Duty of Diligent Implementation of Treaty Promises

By Nigel Bankes

On August 8, 2024

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, Reconciliation, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Ontario (Attorney General) v Restoule, 2024 SCC 27 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Restoule: Tugging on the Rope and the Duty of Diligent Implementation of Treaty Promises

[T]he trial judge found that the Robinson Treaties were motivated largely by the principles of kinship and mutual interdependence, as reflected in the Covenant Chain. This enduring alliance has been depicted using the metaphor of a ship tied to a tree with a metal chain: “The metaphor associated with the chain was that if one party was in need, they only had to ‘tug on the rope’ to give the signal that something was amiss, and ‘all would be restored’” … The Anishinaabe treaty partners have been tugging on the rope for some 150 years now, but the Crown has ignored their calls. The Crown has severely undermined both the spirit and substance of the Robinson Treaties.

Per Justice Jamal at para 286

In a unanimous judgment authored by Justice Jamal, Ontario (Attorney General) v Restoule, 2024 SCC 27 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the Crown has a duty of diligent implementation of treaty promises that is informed not by fiduciary principles, but by the honour of the Crown. And in this case, the Crown was clearly in breach of that duty since, as Justice Jamal noted in words that will ring down through the decades: “For well over a century, the Crown has shown itself to be a patently unreliable and untrustworthy treaty partner in relation to the augmentation promise. It has lost the moral authority to simply say ‘trust us’” (at para 262).