Kennedy v Carry the Kettle First Nation, 2020 SKCA 32

Appeal allowed of a judicial review that quashed a customary decision to remove opposing members on a First Nation’s election code tribunal. The Federal Court of Canada had exclusive original jurisdiction pursuant to s 18 of the Federal Courts Act to hear and determine that application. 

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch BlogThe Appellants are members of the Cega-Kin Nakoda Oyate Tribunal [“Tribunal”], an election tribunal established by the Cega-Kin Nakoda Oyate Custom Election Act [“Code”]. They, like the Respondents, [“opposing members”], were appointed as Tribunal members by the Chief and Council of the respondent, Carry the Kettle First Nation [“CKFN”]. The Code provides that the Tribunal shall have five members.

In 2019, the Appellants purported to make orders of the Tribunal [“Orders”] at certain meetings. The only attendees at those meetings were the Appellants, as the opposing members refused to attend, and never approved the Orders. Subsequently a resolution was passed at a joint meeting of the Appellants and a group of Elders [“Elders’ resolution”]. The Elders’ resolution established rules for the removal of Tribunal members and removed the opposing members from the Tribunal. The CKFN applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for judicial review, challenging the validity of the Orders and the Elders’ resolution [“Application”]. The Chambers judge who heard that judicial review quashed the Orders and the Elder’s resolution. In this matter the Appellants appeal that decision to this Court. It has been determined that this appeal must be allowed, as the Federal Court of Canada had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application.

After s 74 of the Indian Act order was rescinded in 2018 for the CKFN, their Code came into effect. The definition of “council of the band” in s 2(1) of the Indian Act provides that when a band is not subject to a s 74 order, and is not named or formerly named in the schedule to the First Nations Elections Act, “council of the band” means “the council chosen according to the custom of the band, or, if there is no council, the chief of the band chosen according to the custom of the band”.

None of the parties takes issue with the proposition that the Code constitutes “custom of the band” within the meaning of s 2, although they differ as to what constitutes custom. It is clear that a recently adopted election code may be custom for this purpose, despite that the authority to enact such a custom election code is not granted by the Indian Act or other federal legislation (Pastion v Dene Tha’ First Nation, [2019] 1 CNLR 343 [“Pastion”]). The custom of the band is not limited, and indeed may bear little resemblance, to historic customs, practices or traditions that existed prior to the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty. What the Indian Act describes as ‘custom’ is often the written product of public deliberation within a First Nation and it may rely on the mechanisms of Western democracy, or provide for a mechanism that blends Western democracy and Indigenous tradition (Pastion). The Code is such a document regardless of whether, as Pastion suggests, it might be more apt to describe it as “Indigenous legislation” or “Indigenous law”. The Code is effective for purposes of the Indian Act regardless of whether that is so.

The Code does not contain provisions which deal expressly with the issues of removal or replacement of Tribunal members. The Appellants resolved to hold a joint meeting with the Nation Elders to deal with those issues. That meeting [“Elders’ Meeting”], attended by the Appellants, and 26 Elders, unanimously supported the Elders’ resolution, which established criteria and a process for removing and replacing Tribunal members. This Elders’ resolution also provided that the three opposing members were “removed as Tribunal members effective immediately”.

In this matter, the Appellants submitted that both the Tribunal and the Elders’ Meeting were federal boards, commissions or tribunals [“Federal entity”] within the meaning of s 18 of the Federal Courts Act [“FCA”]. The Chambers judge did not deal with the question of whether the Tribunal and the Elders’ Meeting were Federal entities. On an appeal from a judicial review, the task of an appeal court is normally to determine whether the Chambers judge selected the correct standard of review and correctly applied that standard (Kawula v Institute of Chartered Accountants of Saskatchewan, 2017 SKCA 70; Dr Q v College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 19). It is concluded that this appeal should be disposed of on the basis of the jurisdictional question, which raises two issues: 1) did the learned Chambers judge err by deciding that the Court of Queen’s Bench had jurisdiction to hear the Application pursuant to s 22 of the Code; and 2) did the Chambers judge err by failing to decide that the Federal Court had exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the Application pursuant to s 18 of the FCA?

In this case, the conditions necessary to engage the right to apply pursuant to s 22 have not been met because the Application was filed by the CKFN. That, in itself, is enough to determine the issue. The Tribunal has not yet made a final decision as to the results of the election, therefore the CKFN could not bring the Application in the Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to s 22 of the Code, and the Chambers judge did not have jurisdiction to hear the Application pursuant to that section.

The same reasoning applies to the Elders’ Meeting. The question is not whether those recognized as Elders by the Nation are a Federal entity whenever they play a role in the CKFN’s affairs. The question is whether the Elders’ Meeting had the authority to pass the Elders’ resolution. If the Elders’ Meeting had the authority it exercised or purported to exercise, it was because that authority was the custom of the band, and like the authority of the Tribunal, was made effective in this context. The Tribunal and the Elders’ Meeting were both Federal entities within the meaning of s 18 of the FCA. The Chambers judge erred by failing to decide that the Federal Court had exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the Application pursuant to s 18 of the FCA.

Crate et al v Government of Manitoba, 2020 MBQB 9

Manitoba satisfied its duty to consult and accommodate a First Nation prior to granting a licence to a company to expand an existing peat harvesting and procession operation that would affect traditional activities of hunting, fishing and harvesting plants in the area.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

Sunterra Horticulture Inc [“Sunterra”] submitted a notice of alteration in relation to its existing license to allow expansion of its existing peat harvesting and processing operation on the Washow Bay Peninsula which is land within the traditional territory of the Fisher River Cree Nation [“FRCN”]. The Government of Manitoba invited FRCN to participate in consultations but ultimately granted the revised license to Sunterra.

FRCN appealed the issuance of the license but the appeal was dismissed. By way of an application for declaratory relief, the applicant’s sought a review of the Minister’s decision focused on two substantive issues: 1) the Sunterra license should not have been granted because Manitoba failed to satisfy its duty to consult with FRCN before issuance; and 2) the Minister’s decision to dismiss FRCN’s appeal was based on a failure of Manitoba to hold a public hearing and comply with section 11(10) of The Environment Act.

Whether Manitoba correctly assessed the extent of their duty to consult was reviewed on a standard of correctness. It was not disputed that peat harvesting could interfere with or disrupt the traditional activities of hunting, fishing and harvesting plants in the area. Manitoba correctly identified the level of consultation required as being at the medium to high level. It was significant that Manitoba had an established written policy regarding the level of consultation. Prior to consultation, Manitoba and FRCN agreed to and signed a Protocol respecting Crown-Aboriginal Consultations and a Consultation Funding Agreement with respect to the Sunterra project. These were examples consistent with those suggested in Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 CNLR 72.

Whether Manitoba adequately discharged its duty to consult was reviewed on a standard of reasonableness. Based on the consultation record, Manitoba received and responded to FRCN’s concerns in relation to the exercise of its Aboriginal and treaty rights. Manitoba provided information to FCRN when it was requested. There was ongoing correspondence and dialogue. The conditions as set out by the record constituted adequate accommodations of FRCN’s concerns. While the FRCN may have received a response they did not want, it could not be said that Manitoba did not consider FCRN’s position and responded to it. Therefore, Manitoba satisfied its duty to consult and accommodate FRCN prior to granting the Sunterra licence.

As for the public hearing, it was not unreasonable for the Minister to conclude that the concerns raised by FRCN regarding the Sunterra project were addressed by the conditions imposed on the licence. There was no evidence that FCRN was prejudiced by the Director’s failure to comply with the twenty-one-day deadline. There was no evidence of bad faith, or a failure to recognize responsibilities of a disregard for public concerns, or of a dismissal of legitimate objections to the project. Although the failure to comply with the statutory timeline cannot be condoned, it was not basis for the court to invalidate the issuance of the Sunterra licence or the Minister’s conclusion that a public hearing was unnecessary.

Solomon v Garden River First Nation, 2019 FC 1505

Judicial review granted. There was a breach of procedural fairness in the process followed by the Chief and Council that led to the Applicants being banished from Garden River First Nation. The matter is remitted for reconsideration.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The Chief and Council of Garden River First Nation [“GRFN”] issued a series of Band Council Resolutions [“BCRs”] banning Kody John William Solomon and Ralph Justin Romano [“the Applicants”] from GRFN territory. On this application, the Applicants seek judicial review of these BCRs and the process undertaken by the Chief and Council.

GRFN is governed by an elected Chief and Council who are responsible for the governance of the Nation and its approximately 3,000 members. One of the applicants have resided there his whole life, another non-member has lived on GRFN for 19 years with his member spouse and teenage daughter. The Applicants were banished as they had been charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and that “illegal drugs have caused great harm to Garden River and its members,” and “allowing [the Applicants] to remain in Garden River may cause harm to Garden River and its members or endanger public safety.”

There is no dispute that the initial 2018 BCRs were issued by GRFN’s Chief and Council without the opportunity for any input from the Applicants, nor did they have notice. The right to a fair hearing requires that the Applicants have adequate notice of the case against them and sufficient opportunity to respond before a decision adverse to their interests was made (Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9). Given the serious consequences of the banishment decisions, the degree of procedural fairness owned to the Applicants is heightened.

It appears GRFN’s Council itself recognized flaws in the process undertaken. By-Law 20 was adopted subsequently after the BCRs in 2018. The major differences from By-Law 13 are that it allows the Band Council to banish members of GRFN and persons deemed to be threats to the peace and safety of the Band or other people lawfully on the reserve. By-Law 20 provides a process that is clearly tailored to address the particular circumstances of the Applicants, a member and a non-member of GRFN who were charged with a criminal offence. However, there was still no reconsideration of the original decision to banish the Applicants in the BCRs issued in 2019. Rather it appears the GRFN Council simply passed the new By-Law and considered it to have rectified any issues with the previous BCRs from 2018.

The case law is clear that issues of procedural fairness are considered on a correctness standard (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (AG), 2018 FCA 69). The test for assessing if the process was fair, is to ask whether a right-minded person, applying themselves to the question and obtaining the required information, would think it is more likely than not that the decision-maker did not decide fairly (Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 SCC 699 [“Baker”]). The factors outlined in Baker for assessing procedural fairness include: 1) the nature of the decision and the process followed in making it; the nature of the statutory scheme; 2) the importance of the decision to the individuals affected; 3) the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision; and 4) the choice of procedure made by the agency itself.

Considering that By-Law 20 appears to have been crafted to address the specific circumstances of the Applicants, they had a legitimate expectation that the process laid out in By-Law 20 would be followed. When the Baker factors are considered in conjunction with the reasonable apprehension of bias, it is clear that there was a breach of the Applicants’ right to procedural fairness. The evidence demonstrates a continuing course of conduct on the part of GRFN’s Council who never undertook the promised reconsideration of the original banishment decision. The 2019 BCRs were simply a reissue of the original 2018 banishments under the new By-Law. The decision-making process that led to the Council’s 2019 decision was procedurally unfair because the Council made up its mind in 2018. From that point, GRFN Council defended its original decision rather than engage in a true reconsideration.

Engstrom and Ragan v Peters First Nation Band Council, 2020 FC 286

Application allowed. Peters First Nation Band Council is ordered to take all steps necessary to grant full Band memberships to the Applicants.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The Peters First Nation Band Council [“Council”] rejected the Applicants’ respective applications for band membership. This matter is the second application for judicial review seeking relief in connection with the denial of their memberships.

The first application was granted, but the Court declined to express an opinion about the merits of the Council’s decision in denying membership to the Applicants. However, it was found that the Council had acted unfairly by failing to inform them in advance of the factors that would be taken into account in deciding their applications. There was also concern regarding the Council’s failure to provide substantive reasons for its decision. The matter was accordingly remitted to Council for reconsideration, but once again, the applications were refused.

The Court was not able to ascertain the exact motives of the Council for denying Band memberships to the Applicants. It can assess, however, the Council’s stated reasons for denying those memberships to determine whether those reasons had the mark of rationality, intelligibility and justification. The focus of judicial review is on the reasons provided by the decision-maker in support of its decision. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, reasonableness review “must be on the decision actually made”, not the reasons that could have been made (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [“Vavilov”]). Robust judicial review is about outcomes and a decision-maker’s reasoning process in getting to an outcome. Both must be reasonable in light of the legal and factual constraints that bear on the decision. A primary legal constraint is the governing statutory scheme. It is not open to a decision-maker to disregard the applicable rules. There is no such thing as absolute or untrammelled discretion (Roncarelli v Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121).

A decision-maker may have some room to interpret the rules that apply to a matter before it but that exercise must be consistent with the text, context and purpose of the provision (Vavilov). Where the words employed are precise and unequivocal, their ordinary meaning will usually be determinative. It is not open to the decision-maker to adopt an “inferior” interpretation merely because it is plausibly available and expedient; or to “reverse-engineer” to get to a desired outcome (Vavilov). The express governing rules that apply to the Council’s membership decisions are contained in the Peters Indian Band Membership Code [“Code”]. The Code was adopted by the Band in 1990 and replaced the band membership provisions that had been previously contained in the Indian Act.

In rejecting the applications of the Applicants, it is clear that the Council did not consider itself bound by the membership criteria set out in the Code. It was not open to the Council to make up its own membership rules to supplement the explicit criteria that were adopted in 1990 when the Band took control of its memberships. The Council has acted unlawfully, unfairly and in bad faith in rejecting the membership applications of the Applicants. The Council has repeatedly shown itself to be unfit to decide these matters and there is no reasonable expectation that fairness and reason will prevail if this matter is remitted to the Council again. The Council is directed to take all the steps necessary to grant full Band memberships to the Applicants.

Beaucage v Métis Nation of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 483

Motions dismissed. Canada has entered into a recent agreement with the Métis Nation of Ontario that brings closer the recognition of it as a government entity. However, this agreement does not retroactively apply to a past decision on membership, nor does the agreement subject it to public law remedies while it was still considered a private law entity.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The applicant asks for a review of a decision that quashed his application for judicial review. In 2017, he was denied membership in the Métis Nation of Ontario [“MNO”]. He sought judicial review of that decision. The motion judge determined that MNO is a private voluntary organization incorporated without share capital under the Corporations Act. While MNO aspires to be recognized as a government with public law responsibilities to its citizens in Ontario, “that objective has not yet been achieved.”

The motion for fresh evidence concerns the Métis Government Recognition and Self-Government Agreement between MNO and Canada [“2019 Agreement”] that did not exist at the time of the hearing that quashed his application for judicial review. Parties are in agreement that admitting fresh evidence on appeals applies to this motion (Palmer v R, [1980] 1 SCR 759). But because this agreement did not exist at the time of the 2017 hearing, the only question is whether the 2019 Agreement would have likely affected that result.

For the 2019 Agreement to have affected the result, either: 1) it must be seen as confirming that in 2017 MNO was already a government; or 2) the entry into the 2019 Agreement must be seen to have made a change to the status of MNO that retroactively applies to the impugned decision. Neither argument can succeed. The fact that MNO was closer to being a government, but had still not yet arrived at formal recognition could not have affected that outcome. If, on the other hand, the 2019 Agreement made a substantial change in 2019 such that MNO is now a government, there is still not basis that the 2019 Agreement has a retroactive effect on the 2017 decision concerning the applicant.

It is inconsistent for the court to find that MNO is subject to the burden of judicial review under the public law as it if were already a government, while MNO is denied the benefits of governmental recognition under Canadian law. It would be invasive and disrespectful for the public law to subject the MNO to judicial review as if it were a government while at the same time denying recognition of such status.

 

Gitxaala Nation v Wolverine Terminals ULC et al, 2020 FC 382

Motion dismissed. The Metlakatla First Nation and Lax Kw’alaams should not be joined as respondents or interveners in the Gitxaala Nation’s underlying application for judicial review.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

Wolverine Terminals ULC, has proposed to construct and operate the Prince Rupert Marine Fuels Service Project [“Project”] in the Port of Prince Rupert. The Project is a floating refuelling station intended for refuelling vessels calling in the Port. It is located on federal lands and is subject to a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act [“CEAA”]. Under the CEAA, the Prince Rupert Port Authority and Transport Canada [“Federal Authorities”] could not enable the Project to proceed unless a determination was made that the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. As part of its evaluation process, the Federal Authorities consulted the six First Nation communities with asserted rights and interests within the Project area regarding potential environmental effects that included the Gitxaala Nation [“Gitxaala”], Metlakatla First Nation, Lax Kw’alaams, Gitga’at First Nation, Kitsumkalum, and Kitselas.

In the underlying application for judicial review [“Application”], Gitxaala challenges the decision of the Federal Authorities that the Project will not cause significant adverse environmental effects pursuant to the CEAA, and that the Crown’s obligation to consult with respect to the Project has been fulfilled [“Decision”]. The Metlakatla First Nation and Lax Kw’alaams [“Moving First Nations”] have brought a motion for an order to allow them to be joined as party respondents in the Application. In the alternative, they seek an order to allow them to jointly intervene. This motion is dismissed.

If the Moving First Nations had a direct interest in quashing the Decision that was actually made, they could and should have asserted it by bringing their own application for judicial review on a timely basis. It would be an “impermissible end-run” for them to join the proceedings, in substance as co-applicants, well after the limitation period for applying has passed (Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (AG), 2017 FCA 102).

The Court is not persuaded that the relief sought, if granted, will inevitably impose legal obligations on the Moving First Nations to re-engage in the consultation process. For example, if the Decision is set aside on the narrow basis that the Federal Authorities failed to adequately consult with Gitxaala, due to unique gaps or inadequacies in the specific consultation process undertaken with Gitxaala, it does not inevitably follow that the Federal Authorities will be required to also re-consult with the other five First Nation communities with asserted rights and interests within the Project area. Even if the relief sought by Gitxaala would require the Federal Authorities to re-engage with the Moving First Nations, the Court is not satisfied that the Moving First Nations would be directly affected by the relief sought in the Application.

The Moving First Nations argue that the relief sought will adversely and directly affect their legal rights by causing them to become legally obligated to participate in a more onerous statutory and consultative process, and incur additional time and expense to re-engage with the Federal Authorities. They rely on the legal principle of a reciprocal duty on First Nations to consult with the Crown in good faith and they cannot, by their conduct, place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the consultation process (Ahousaht First Nation v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), [2008] 3 CNLR 67).

The reciprocal duty imposed on First Nations is significantly different in nature from the duty imposed on the Crown to consult with First Nations. The Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations gives rise to co-extensive right in First Nations to be consulted, and the breach of which is actionable in the Courts. The same cannot be said of the reciprocal duty on First Nations to engage in consultation with the Crown. Unlike the Crown’s duty to consult, the reciprocal duty imposed on First Nations is not an enforceable legal obligation.

The Moving First Nations have not satisfied the Court that their participation as respondents is necessary to determine the adequacy of Gitxaala’s consultation process, or demonstrated how this issue cannot be effectively and completely settled unless they are made respondents on the Application (Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) v Shubenacadie Indian Band, 2002 FCA 509).

As for being added as intervenors, acting under the guise of having a different perspective, an intervener cannot adduce fresh evidence or make submissions that are in reality fresh evidence (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Ishaq, 2015 FCA 151). A proposed intervener must rely on the same evidence in the record that others are relying upon and focus on how they can assist the Court’s determination of the existing proceedings. The Moving First Nations’ proposed position appears to be an expansion of the issues raised in the existing Application. If they intend to argue, in effect, that Gitxaala has no valid asserted claim to the potential existence of Aboriginal title or rights in the project area, the corollary to that argument would be that no duty to consult arose. Gitxaala does not challenge the Decision based on any such finding, but rather on the basis that the Federal Authorities failed to adequately consult with Gitxaala. While the Moving First Nations assert that their participation will assist, it is the Court’s view they have not discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate how it will assist (Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236).

Siksika Health Services v Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2019 ABCA 494

Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in denying judicial review and affirming the decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board in accepting jurisdiction over labour relations issues involving the parties.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The appellant [“Employer”] appeals the chambers judge’s decision denying judicial review and affirming the decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board to accept jurisdiction over labour relations issues involving the parties.

The specific operation of Siksika Emergency Medical Services [“SEMS”] is governed by an agreement between the Employer and Alberta Health Services, the provincial health authority. SEMS provides emergency medical services based in the First Nation in accordance with provincial regulation in return for monthly provincial payments. The Employer is also able to direct bill patients for services. The agreement between Alberta Health Services and Siksika Health Services Corporation [“Agreement”] includes the following policy and interpretive statement: “The parties acknowledge the historical and contemporary importance of the treaties to the relationship between the Crown, Canada and Siksika Nation. It is intended that nothing in this Agreement shall have the effect of, or be interpreted as, limiting or expanding any fiduciary relationship between Canada and the First Nations people.”

The respondent [“Union”] was not a party to the Agreement but the Union did not challenge this background philosophy. In this respect, both Canada and the province are expected to live up to the honour of the Crown in their dealings with Treaty and Aboriginal rights. The Union sought certification as the bargaining agent for all ambulance attendants employed with SEMS.

The Employer takes the position that all of the workers in SEMS and under its authority are performing tasks which amount to carrying out a federal undertaking respecting the supply of health and medical services to the people covered by the Treaty and to the First Nation. As such, the Employer argues that it is a federally regulated employer and any labour matters should be dealt with under federal rather than provincial legislation. The Board and the chambers judge had found otherwise.

The role of this Court is to step into the shoes of the chambers judge when it comes to reviewing the decision of the Board (Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36). A court must first apply the functional test to examine the nature, operations and habitual activities of the entity to see if it is a federal undertaking. If so, its labour relations will be federally regulated. Only if this inquiry is inconclusive should a court proceed to an examination of whether provincial regulation of the entity’s labour relations would impair the core of the federal head of power at issue (NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees’ Union, [2010] 4 CNLR 284 [“NIL/TU,O”]).

The chambers judge concluded that the functional analysis in NIL/TU,O did not support the Employer’s position and dismissed the application for judicial review. It was concluded that the Board correctly found that the presumption of provincial regulation of labour relations was not rebutted in this case and that the Board correctly determined it had jurisdiction over the Union’s certification application.

The Employer argues that because the Indian Act included certain provisions related to the medical and health services for the First Nation, then Parliament had made “provision” for the subject of medical and health services for the First Nation. The Employer said the duty of Canada to provide medical and health services to the First Nation could in part be derived from the “medicine chest” reference in Treaty No 6. That concept has evidently been accepted by Canada as influencing the promises to “take care of you” in the development of Treaty No 7 governing the lands in Alberta where this First Nation is located. The Employer referred to the language of Treaty No 7, which attracts a liberal reading in relation to the promises made to Aboriginal people as re-affirmed by s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Court’s role on this appeal of a judicial review decision is restricted to determining whether the chambers judge erred and whether the Board erred in taking jurisdiction to the extent that it did so. This Court will not express any opinion beyond a legality determination respecting what the Board did, let alone express any policy perspective on any aspect of the ongoing effort to achieve social and legal reconciliation of Canadian society with Indigenous peoples.

The Court found no error in the chambers judge conclusion that the Employer’s position was without merit after applying the functional analysis in NIL/TU,O. Funding by Canada alone would not constitute direction of the work being done. The Agreement sets standards and links the service to compliance with laws and guidance applicable otherwise to similar medical and health services in Alberta.

Application of the functional test to the facts found here does not lead to the conclusion that SEMS is a federal undertaking under NIL/TU,O. Section 88 of the Indian Act extends provincial laws to Indians ex proprio vigore except to the extent those laws impair “the status and rights of Indians” (NIL/TU,O). The provision of medical and health services to members of the First Nation arises from their position as human beings, not from any specific ethnicity. While the duty of Canada to Aboriginal people is more general, the specific topic of medical and health services for Indigenous peoples is to their benefit as people living in Alberta. The Employer has not shown that the application of provincial labour relations laws to the SEMS work force impairs in any serious sense the “status or rights of Indians”.

Maliseet Grand Council et al v New Brunswick et al, 2019 NBQB 198

Motion granted. The two applications for judicial review are dismissed. The applicants have not established standing. Judicial reviews are not an appropriate forum for how the dispute regarding s 35 Aboriginal rights is framed.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

In a bid to enhance winter tourism in northern New Brunswick, the Province decided to improve the snowmobile trail system, by proceeding with the development of a snowmobile grooming hub in 2015 at Mount Carleton Park. The two judicial review applications arose in the context of this decision made by the Province. The initial judicial review focused on whether the Province’s decision to develop the grooming hub was in violation of the Province’s Parks Act and to first conduct an environmental impact assessment. The second judicial review application challenged the Province’s decision to exempt work on, and the replacement of, two bridges from a subsequently conducted environmental impact assessment. In addition, all of the judicial review applicants alleged a breach of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. These lands were, according to the judicial review applicants, never ceded by treaty.

Central to this dispute is the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26, the so-called Peace and Friendship Treaty. The Mascarene Treaty represented a negotiated end to the Dummer’s War between the British and the Wabanaki Confederacy. The Eastern Wabanaki Confederacy are a confederation of First Nation and Native American people from (present day) Eastern Canada and the State of Maine, USA. The Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26 was signed by the numerous traditional chiefs of the Eastern Wabanaki Confederacy. This included traditional chiefs of the Wolastoqewiyik (Maliseet) peoples located in present day New Brunswick. The Wabanaki Confederacy is said to also be in the process of “being rebuilt”.

Having carefully considered the substantive submissions of the parties and having reviewed all of the numerous authorities in the context of both Aboriginal and Treaty rights litigation across Canada, the Court concluded that the Province’s motion to dismiss the two applications for judicial review will succeed. It was determined the applicants on judicial review have not established standing, which is fatal to both judicial reviews. As well, judicial reviews are not an appropriate forum to determine the existence of an Aboriginal section 35 rights-bearing collective.

Counsel for the judicial review applicants acknowledges these to be unique circumstances, however, it does not require this Court to adopt unique and novel legal constructs. “Aboriginal rights exist within the general legal system of Canada” (R v Van der Peet, [1996] 4 CNLR 177 [R v Van der Peet]). There is ample and longstanding authoritative support for the notion that both Aboriginal and Treaty rights are collective or communal in nature (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 CNLR 72). While such rights may be exercised, in certain circumstances, by individual members of the community, these rights remain collective or communal (R v Powley, [2003] 4 CNLR 321). While the judicial review applicants initially based their claims against the Province over its failure to consult them, to a great degree, on “Aboriginal rights”, they now premise their relief on a breach of the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26.

In the matter before this Court, the judicial review applicants believe a fair interpretation of the wording of the Mascarene Treaty allows for them to seek relief by way of judicial review for a breach of the Maliseets people’s rights. While they do not seek any declaratory relief specifically recognizing them as an authorized Aboriginal or Treaty rights holder for the Maliseet Nation, they do seek an order against the Province requiring it to fulfill a duty to consult prior to further work on the project continuing. Ostensibly, the judicial review applicants rely on the wording “any Indian” found in the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26 so as to suggest they have “constitutional standing” to proceed. While creative, there is no merit to this argument. Even if this Court were satisfied with the specific interpretation of the wording found in the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26, and in the manner now espoused by the judicial review applicants, there is an absence of evidence any of the judicial review applicants actually or actively pursued the very rights alleged to have been impacted and at the allegedly affected parts of Mount Carleton Park.

Even if the Court is in error with respect to standing, this dispute, as framed, is not appropriate for judicial review. A judicial review application should not be turned into a hearing de novo or an appeal. The Court’s role on judicial review is not to consider the matter anew or adjudicate conflicting expert opinions based on new evidence, but to review the decision on the basis of the material before the decision-maker. Aboriginal rights must be proven by tested evidence; they cannot be established as an incident of administrative law proceedings that centre on the adequacy of consultation and accommodation. To permit this would invite uncertainty and discourage final settlement of alleged rights through the proper processes. Aboriginal rights claims require that proper evidence be marshalled to meet specific legal tests in the context of a trial (R v Van der Peet; Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1998] 1 CNLR 14; and Mitchell v MNR, [2001] 3 CNLR 122).

There are a few cases where standing was made an issue. In those few cases, it was held that the Aboriginal party must show it, in fact, has recognized authority to represent an Aboriginal collective, or portions thereof, for purposes of section 35 constitutional reconciliation or litigation. In this matter, the judicial review applicants argue that they need not do so as the Mascarene Treaty of 1725/26 expressly provides for their standing. Any Treaty interpretation, especially cases with such potentially broad application as in this case, must take into account all of the Aboriginal parties to the Treaty and the government(s). The judicial review applicants have chosen to proceed, not only without evidence of current representational authority for the collective Maliseet Nation, but they have done so in a forum to the exclusion of numerous recognized Maliseet entities, such as the First Nations communities in New Brunswick who quite likely may be affected by this proceeding and the relief sought.

Mi’kmaq of PEI v PEI (Her Majesty the Queen), 2019 PECA 26

Appeal dismissed. Prince Edward Island [“PEI”] satisfied the duty to consult with the Mi’kmaq in PEI, when it came to the transfer of the Mill River golf course property to private ownership.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The Mi’kmaq in PEI [“Mi’kmaq”] have asserted Aboriginal title to all of the lands and waters of PEI. Their claim is based on exclusive occupancy at the time of first contact with Europeans and at the assertion of British sovereignty. The Province of PEI [“Province”] approved the conveyance of the Mill River golf course and resort to a private sector company. Since the Mill River property was Crown land, and the Mi’kmaq had previously given notice to the Province that it intends to bring a claim for Aboriginal title to all of PEI, the Government initiated consultation.

The Mi’kmaq brought an application for judicial review before the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island. They sought declarations that the Province failed to adequately consult or accommodate and that the Orders-in-Council approving transfer for the properties are invalid and to be set aside. It was determined that the Province provided the Mi’kmaq with timely and appropriate information regarding its general intention to divest its four golf course properties, including requesting information and evidence in support of the Mi’kmaq claim to Aboriginal title and as to its concerns over potential adverse effect of the proposed conveyance.

The Mi’kmaq in PEI now appeal to this Court. They assert the reviewing judge made numerous errors. They challenge the finding that the Province gave adequate consultation. In this appeal they ask whether the government acted reasonably in carrying out consultation and if it was sufficient in the circumstances. This Court determined that the consultation was reasonable and also points out that the duty to consult was not triggered in the circumstances (Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2005] 1 CNLR 72). As to Aboriginal title, there was very little information or evidence provided in support of the assertion that, based on exclusive occupancy at the time of British sovereignty, it had Aboriginal title to all of PEI or the property.

Consultation is a two-way street. The Mi’kmaq provided little by way of evidence or information to show how its asserted title claim would be eventually proven or as to its historic connection with the property. The information provided was mainly repeated assertions with general statements of entitlement to title that did not materially contribute to an evidence-based assessment. The Mi’kmaq claim as presented to the Province was tenuous. A potential for adverse effect needs to be raised. There needs to be a nexus shown between the potential activity on or regarding the land and the interest sought to be protected (Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, [2010] 4 CNLR 250). There was no information or evidence provided to show potential infringement or adverse impact on identified Mi’kmaq interest or association with the Mill River property as a result of conveyance of the property. The reviewing judge performed the proportionality test properly and without error.

Makivik Corporation v Canada (Minister of Environment and Climate Change), 2019 FC 1297

Application for judicial review dismissed. Granting declaratory relief would not be appropriate, as it would affect the parties’ intention to improve the wildlife management system for Nunavik Inuit as established by the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

The Applicant, Makivik Corporation [“Makivik”], sought judicial review against the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s [“Minister”] decision [“Minister’s decision”] regarding the Total Allowable Take [“TAT”] of polar bears in the Southern Hudson Bay [“SHB”] region pursuant to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement [“NILCA”] and the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement Act [EMRLCA]. Makivik is the legal representative of Nunavik Inuit. It is a non-profit organization with the primary role to administer the lands of the Inuit, as well as to protect the rights, interests and financial compensation provided by NILCA and EMRCLA.

This application primarily concerns Article 5 of NILCA, which establishes a co-management regime that seeks to integrate Inuit knowledge and approaches to wildlife management with Western scientific knowledge. The parties have all made it clear that the conservation and state of polar bears is fundamentally important to the Inuit, other Indigenous people, and society at large. For the Inuit, especially, the polar bear, or “Nanuq” in Inuktitut, is a powerful and meaningful being. Polar bears are prominent in their culture, as they are highly valued and appreciated for their meat and fur. The Inuit have hunted polar bears as a source of sustenance for thousands of years, and many Inuit communities continue to rely on polar bears for both social and economic purposes.

Makivik submits that this case really is not about polar bears, nor is it about the duty to consult. It submits that this case is about the implementation of Inuit treaty rights under NILCA, a constitutionally protected modern treaty which fosters reconciliation. Makivik also claims that the Minister’s decision was neither correct nor reasonable. For relief, it does not seek to quash the Minister’s decision but wants several declarations concerning the Minister’s decision.

The Minister’s decision varied the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board’s and the Eeyou Marine Region Wildlife Board’s [“the Boards”] final decision regarding the TAT and non-quota limitations for the harvesting of SHB polar bears within the Nunavik Marine Region, pursuant to s 5.5.12 of NILCA and s 15.3.7 of the EMRLCA. She rejected the Boards’ initial decision to establish a TAT of 28 polar bears, and for them to reconsider their decision without exceeding a maximum sustainable harvest rate of 4.5 percent. The Boards were also asked to implement a sex-selective harvest of two males for every female bear.

The Court came to the conclusion in this matter, that the Minister’s decision was correct and, with the exception of the issue of using sex-selective harvests and varying other non-quota limitations, the remainder of the Minister’s decision was reasonable. Since Makivik is not seeking to quash the Minister’s decision, then it stands. The temporary nature of the Minister’s decision was a major factor in the Court’s decision. The Court’s role is not to assess the adequacy of each party’s compliance at each stage of a modern treaty process (First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v Yukon, 2017 SCC 58). It would be premature for the Court to grant declaratory relief on issues regarding the interpretation of NILCA. By declining to grant relief in the present application, the Court is of the view that the parties would continue to govern together and work out their differences.