Supreme Court of Canada – 2013 SCC 14Manitoba Fiduciary dutyHonour of the CrownMétis
This decision determined whether the Crown had breached its obligations towards the Métis in its implementation of the Manitoba Act. The Court recognizes that there can be a breach of the honour of the Crown because of accumulated faults, and rejects a defense based on the passing of time.
A constitutional and solemn obligation of the Crown with the objective to reconcile its sovereignty with aboriginal interests gives rises to the honour of the Crown. However, since the Manitoba Act does not grant discretionary power to the Crown on aboriginal interests, there is no fiduciary duty.
Supreme Court of Canada –  2 S.C.R. 670Alberta Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsGovernance (self-determination, self-government)IdentityMétis
The Court determined that Métis could be refused rights guaranteed by the Metis Settlement Act upon registering as status Indians.
This treatment could be considered a violation to the right to equality guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it creates a distinction between Métis with Indian status and those without, but it comes from an ameliorative program with the goal of enriching the culture, identity and autonomy of the Métis.
Do the Métis Settlements Act violate the Charter? If yes, is this violation a reasonable limit imposed by a rule of law that is justified in a free and democratic society?
Supreme Court of Canada –  2 S.C.R. 207Ontario Aboriginal rightsMétis
Powley is a leading case in asserting Métis’ rights. It established a test to determine whether a community can be considered as “Métis” under the Constitution, and whether an individual can be considered as a member of this community.
It was delivered on the same day as Blais.
Does Ontario’s Game and Fish Act contravene the Métis’ Aboriginal right protected under section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982?
Supreme Court of Canada –  2 S.C.R. 236Manitoba Aboriginal rightsMétis
Delivered the same day as Powley. The Supreme Court refuses to conclude that the Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Agreement applies to Métis, but notes that they could use section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have their aboriginal rights recognized.
Can Métis be considered as “Indians” under the Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Agreement?