This should be interesting (at least for those so inclined Canadians) to watch down the road. The Manitoba Métis Federation is appealing a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision handed down on July 7, 2010. Below is an excerpt from that decision. And here is the leave to appeal. (note: this leave to appeal is dated February 10, 2011 and unfortunately slipped through, unnoticed, until now).
Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. (“MMF”) and individual Métis plaintiffs asserted that Métis people of Manitoba suffered historic injustice, namely, loss of land base they were to have received under Manitoba Act (1870) upon Manitoba’s entry into Canadian Confederation — Plaintiffs brought action for declaratory relief to assist them in future negotiations with governments of Canada and Manitoba to achieve land claims agreement — MMF was Manitoba corporation purporting to represent 130,000 Métis people — Individual plaintiffs alleged they were descendents of persons referred to in Act as “half-breeds” entitled to land pursuant to s. 31 of Act and to land and other rights under s. 32 of Act — Action was dismissed — Appellants appealed — Appeal dismissed — Appellants’ claim for declaration that Crown breached fiduciary duty under ss. 31 and 32 of Act was statute-barred — Request for declaration of constitutional invalidity of relevant Orders in Council and statutes of Canada and Manitoba was not subject to statutory limitation period.
…
Part V Summary and Conclusion
737 To conclude, I provide the following summary:
(a) The appellants’ claim for a declaration that the Crown breached its fiduciary duty under ss. 31 and 32 of the Act is statute-barred. The request for a declaration of constitutional invalidity of the relevant Orders in Council and statutes of Canada and Manitoba is not subject to a statutory limitation period.(b) The equitable doctrine of laches does not apply to the claim that Manitoba’s statutory enactments were unconstitutional. While it is arguable that the claim that Canada misinterpreted its constitutional obligations under ss. 31 and 32 of the Act is barred by laches, it is not necessary to decide this question because all proceedings commenced by the appellants are moot.(c) The trial judge’s exercise of his judicial discretion not to grant the declaratory relief sought should not be interfered with.
(d) The trial judge did not exercise his discretion on the basis of a wrong principle or commit an error in law in the exercise of his discretion in denying the appellant Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. standing.
(e) A fiduciary relationship arises between the Crown and Aboriginals; the Métis are Aboriginal.
(f) The test for determining whether a fiduciary obligation exists within a Crown-Aboriginal relationship is composed of two parts; a specific or cognizable interest, and an undertaking of discretionary control by the Crown in the nature of a private law duty. A finding of Aboriginal title is not an essential component of a Crown-Aboriginal fiduciary duty or obligation.
(g) The trial judge did not commit palpable and overriding error when he concluded that the appellants failed to prove any breach of duty with respect to any of the five specific complaints made by the appellants. This being so, it is unnecessary to decide whether in the particular circumstances the Crown did in fact owe a fiduciary obligation to the appellants.
(h) With respect to s. 32, the trial judge did not err when he found the obligations associated with s. 32 did not arise in the context of a Crown-Aboriginal relationship. He was correct to conclude there was no fiduciary duty or obligation owed to the settlers.
738 I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs to each of the respondents.
Turtle Talk 