Ontario Mining Company Ltd. and Attorney-General for Canada v. Seybold et al. and Attorney-General for Ontario

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – [1903] A.C. 73

Summary

This decision confirms the earlier St. Catherine’s Milling ruling. Once the title is surrendered the province becomes the sole owner of the land. The Dominion had no right to grant licenses.

Issue

After the surrender of Indian lands to the Crown, can the province, in which they are situated, dispose of them without the consent of the federal government?

Smith v. The Queen

Supreme Court of Canada – [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554

Summary

The Supreme Court applies St. Catherine’s Milling and confirms that the surrender of lands reserved for Indians extinguishes federal jurisdiction. The federal government has jurisdiction over reserved lands until they are surrendered.

Issue

Does the 1895 surrender of reserve lands by the Indians to the Crown prevent the application of s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and repeal the rights of the Indians?

Musqueam Indian Band v. Glass

Supreme Court of Canada – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 633

Summary

This case was one of the firsts to have definitely reconsidered reserves territorial regime. The Court confirmed that because of their legal environment, lots on reserve are worth a lot less than those outside the reserve. Since then, and until today, aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments are still looking for a viable solution to the low value of reserve lands.

Issue

The Court must determine the meaning of the terms “current land value,” “unimproved” and “this agreement” in the Musqueam rent review clause

Corinthe et al. v. Seminary of St. Sulpice

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – [1912] A.C. 872

Summary

The Mohawk tried to claim property of the Seigneury of the Lake of Two Mountains, although it was rejected by the Court on the basis of a law of Lower Canada.

The Court encouraged the Mohawk to claim the benefits granted to Indians in the Seigneury by the Canadian government and seek aid.

What they received was not satisfactory, which gave rise to the Oka Crisis in 1990.

Issue

Between the Mohawks and the Sulpicians, who holds the title to ownership of the Seigneury of the Lake of Two Mountains?

Attorney-General for Quebec v. Attorney-General for Canada (RE Indian Lands)

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – [1920] 90 L.J.P.C. 33

Summary

Aboriginals cannot surrender their land rights to anyone other than the Crown. The federal government has the power to accept the surrender, but once completed, the province becomes titular owner of the lands pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Issue

After the surrender of the lands by the Abenakis, was the land title transferred to Canada or to the province of Quebec?

Attorney-General of Canada v. Giroux

Supreme Court of Canada – [1916] 30 D.L.R. 123

Summary

This case confirms that an Indian can buy land for himself, even land that used to be a part of a reserve. The Court confirms the fiduciary duty of the Crown, since it must manage Indian’s monies and lands in their best interest.

Issue

Can an Indian buy from the Crown land previously held in benefit for his tribe?

Johnson & Graham’s Lessees v. M’Intosh

US Supreme Court – 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)

Summary

The decisions rendered by the “Marshall court”, including this one, marked the starting point for a judicial discussion about Aboriginals.

According to the doctrine of discovery, which binds the Aboriginals, the discoverer holds a title to the lands and an exclusive right to acquire Indian lands.

Issue

Does an Indian nation have the capacity to cede parcels of the land they occupied to private individuals?

Church v. Fenton

Supreme Court of Canada – [1880] 5 S.C.R. 239

Summary

The Aboriginal title is extinguished at the moment of cession of Aboriginal lands to the Crown.

Issue

Do formerly Indian lands continue to be non-taxable after being sold?

Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – [1897] A.C.

Summary

This case is one of the first Canadian cases concerning the property of lands and the payment of annuities to Indians.

The Privy Council decided that the obligation to pay annuities to Aboriginals stems from the relationship they have with the Crown, and not from the property of the lands.

A distinction must be made between the obligations of an owner and the obligations that stem from legal jurisdiction.

Issue

Between the province and the Dominion, which one is liable for the increased amount of the Indian annuities?