Last December, we posted a small piece on R. v. Hirsekorn, a test case concerning the Métis right to hunt in Alberta. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently allowed the Blood Tribe and Siksika Nation to intervene in the forthcoming appeal.
Kendall Panther Bone of the Siksika Nation claimed that the the exercise of harvesting rights under Treaty 7 has diminished over time, that the supply is currently limited in the Treaty 7 area and Siksika seeks to protect its traditional rights in southern Alberta.
Kirby Many Fingers of the Blood Tribe noted that “judicial recognition of a Métis right to hunt or fish for food within the Blood Tribe’s Treaty 7 or traditional territory could clearly have an adverse impact on the Treaty rights of the Blood Tribe.”
The Applicants’ application to intervene in this matter will be granted. The intervenors’ interest in the result of the appeal is direct and special. And they may bring a fresh perspective to the issues the Court must decide. However, the attainment of intervenor status comes with conditions. It is the responsibility of counsel, and the Court if necessary, to make certain the conditions are abided by. Not simply because they are there, but because fairness to the parties demands compliance.
The same conditions will apply to each intervenor. They are:
1. The Intervenors will rely solely on the facts and evidence set out in the record of proceeding.
2. The Intervenors may address only the following issues on an appeal without further leave of the Court:
a. The correct statement of the Powley test;
b. The application of the Powley test to the facts and evidence;
c. Whether a collateral attack is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.3. The Intervenors will have no right of appeal.4. The Intervenors will bear their own costs.
Turtle Talk 