Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations v. Landry, a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is a perfect example of the often stark differences between the powers held by Indian tribes in the U.S. and First Nations in Canada. Tribes in the United States enjoy the basic, sovereign right to determine who may enter its territory and under what conditions they may remain. “A tribes’s power to exclude nonmembers entirely or to condition their presence on the reservation is . . . well established.” New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 426 U.S. 324, 333 (1983).
However, on the same issue, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations in Canada had to pass a residency by-law concerning the presence of non-members which then had to be approved by the federal government. After receiving approval by the feds, that by-law was then subject to overview by a provincial court, which has jurisdiction to uphold or reject it.
Ultimately, the provincial court did reject the tribe’s eviction order against the non-member and allowed her to remain on the reserve after she refused to leave, basing its reason on a “core feature of the administration of justice in Canada.” But the $64,000 question raised is why the Band went to a provincial court to enforce its eviction order in the first place.
23 The requirement of adequate reasons is a core feature of the administration of justice in Canada. R. v. Kendall, supra. Here no reasons whatsoever were given. Ms. Landry was therefore denied natural justice such that the decision cannot be upheld.
24 The application is therefore dismissed.
Turtle Talk 