Hot off the presses! And the Canadian Supreme Court hits keep on coming.
This case, released just today, discusses important questions about the duty to consult and the interpretation/implementation of modern comprehensive land claims treaties between the Crown and First Nations.
In this case, the duty of consultation was discharged. Little Salmon/Carmacks acknowledges that it received appropriate notice and information. The Little Salmon/Carmacks objections were made in writing and they were dealt with at a meeting at which Little Salmon/Carmacks was entitled to be present (but failed to attend). Both Little Salmon/Carmacks’s objections and the response of those who attended the meeting were before the Director when, in the exercise of his delegated authority, he approved P’s application. Neither the honour of the Crown nor the duty to consult required more.
Nor was there any breach of procedural fairness. While procedural fairness is a flexible concept, and takes into account the Aboriginal dimensions of the decision facing the Director, it is nevertheless a doctrine that applies as a matter of administrative law to regulate relations between the government decision makers and all residents of the Yukon, Aboriginal as well as non-Aboriginal.
For a great overview of the doctrine and a link to the video webcast of this case, check out Prof. Dwight Newman’s (University of Saskatchewan) resource page. http://www.thedutytoconsult.com/
Turtle Talk 