Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) | |
---|---|
Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner, Clément Gascon, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown | |
Reasons given | |
Unanimous reasons by | Abella J |
Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the
Parties
The plaintiffs were Harry Daniels,
Federal Court
Arguments
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare:[6]
- that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" as the term is used in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867,
- that the Queen owes a fiduciary duty to them as such,
- and that they have the right to be consulted by the federal government on a collective basis, respecting their rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal people.
That was based on the facts the Métis had been considered Aboriginals in Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory, that non-status Indians were those descended from Indians to whom the Indian Act did not apply, and that the government's refusal to recognize those groups meant that they have been discriminated against.[7]
The defendants argued that there were insufficient facts for a declaration to be issued, that Métis had never been considered Indians, and that there was not a group known as "non-status Indians." They denied allegations of discrimination.[8] They claimed that issuing any declaration requested by the plaintiffs would lead only to more litigation.[9]
Opinion
The Federal Court agreed to the first declaration but dismissed the other two.
Appeals
On 6 February 2013, the Canadian government appealed the ruling.[14] The appeal was heard on 29–30 October 2013 by the Federal Court of Appeal, with the court upholding the original decision but excluded non-status Indians from its scope.[15] The Supreme Court of Canada heard a subsequent appeal on 8 October 2015[16] and restored the trial judge's ruling on 14 April 2016.
Supreme Court
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court restored the trial judge's declaration on the first issue, as it settled a "live controversy." However, it agreed that there was no "practical utility" in issuing the other declarations, as those questions "would be a restatement of the existing law."[17] It did so because:
- Delgamuukw v British Columbia had already accepted that Canada’s Aboriginal peoples had a fiduciary relationship with the Crown, and Manitoba Metis Federation Inc v Canada (AG) accepted that such a relationship exists between the Crown and Métis.[18]
- Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia and R v Powley already recognized a context-specific duty to negotiate when Aboriginal rights are engaged.[19]
The fact that federal jurisdiction exists in the matter does not necessarily invalidate any provincial legislation, as the Supreme Court had held in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta that it "favour[s], where possible, the ordinary operation of statutes enacted by both levels of government."[20]
Impact
The Supreme Court's characterization of Métis as being equivalent to "Métis-as-mixed" appeared to represent a reversal of its ruling in Powley.
References
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 35945 Supreme Court of Canada
- ^ Daniels, para. 619
- ^ "Harry Daniels".
- ^ Daniels, paras. 30, 34, 37, and 40
- ^ Daniels, paras. 38 and 39
- ^ Daniels, para. 3
- ^ Daniels, para. 4
- ^ Daniels, para. 5
- ^ Daniels, para. 53
- ^ Daniels, paras. 20 and 619
- ^ Daniels, para. 59
- ^ Daniels, paras. 362–364
- ^ Daniels, para. 551
- ^ "Feds to appeal landmark ruling on Metis and non-status Indians". Toronto Sun. QMI Agency. February 6, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2013.
- ^ Métis are within federal jurisdiction.
- ^ Harry Daniels, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, et al.
- ^ SCC, par. 53, 56
- ^ SCC, par. 53
- ^ SCC, par. 56
- ^ SCC, par. 51, quoting Canadian Western Bank, par. 37
- ^ Andersen, Chris (14 April 2016). "The Supreme Court ruling on Métis: A roadmap to nowhere". The Globe and Mail.
- ^ The National Post. Toronto.