Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada – 2013 SCC 26

British Columbia Aboriginal rightsAbuse of processConsultation

---

Summary

The Supreme Court tackles a long standing issue in aboriginal law: can Aboriginal individuals assert ancestral rights?

The Court decided that unless an individual was appointed to represent its First Nation as an ensemble in the defense of its rights, he or she can not assert a breach to the Crown’s duty to consult.

Individuals can nonetheless, in some instances, ask the government to discuss with them directly or assert their rights before the court when they have interest in an aboriginal or treaty right with an individual aspect

Issue

1. Can the Behns, as individual members of an Aboriginal community, assert a breach of the duty to consult?
2. Can the Behns, as individual members of an Aboriginal community, assert treaty rights?
3. Did the Behns commit an abuse of process in contesting the legality of the licenses only as a defense to the lawsuit initiated by Moulton and not after their delivery?

---

Read More

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada – 2013 SCC 14

Manitoba Fiduciary dutyHonour of the CrownMétis

---

Summary

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.

Issue

1. Is Canada in breach of its fiduciary duty to the Métis?
2. Did Canada fail to comply with the honour of the Crown in the implementation of ss. 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act?
3. Is the claim for a declaration barred by limitations or by the doctrine of laches?

---

Read More

R. v. Ipeelee

Supreme Court of Canada – [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433

Nunavut Criminal law

---

Summary

This decision determines the principles to be taken into account with regards to sentencing Aboriginal offenders for breach of long-term supervision orders (LTSOs).

In order for a sentencing decision made with regards to an Aboriginal offender to be upheld by a higher court, it must take into account his or her special circumstances as mandated by s. 718.1(e) of the Criminal Code.

Issue

1. What are the principles governing the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders?
2. How do those principles apply to the breach of an LTSO?
3. Are the sentences imposed on either Mr. Ipeelee or Mr. Ladue unfit or made in error?

---

Read More

Bastien Estate v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 710

Quebec Indian ActTaxation

---

Summary

This case was delivered on the same day as Dubé. It determines the location of immaterial personal property relative to a reserve. If the location is determined to be on the reserve, the interest income generated from the personal property is also located on the reserve and is exempt from taxation.

Issue

Is the interest income earned by Bastien’s term deposits at the the Caisse populaire Desjardins du Village Huron (Wendake) considered to be “personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve” to the effect that it is exempt from taxation?

---

Read More

Dubé v. Canada

Supreme Court of Canada – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 764

Quebec Indian ActTaxation

---

Summary

This case was delivered on the same day as Bastien. It determines the location of immaterial personal property relative to a reserve. The tax exemption applies to all personal property of an Indian situated on any reserve, and not one reserve in particular.

Issue

Is interest earned on term deposits considered to be “personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve” to the effect that it is exempt from taxation?

---

Read More