Concerning the leave to appeal, which was granted to the Manitoba Métis Federation on February 10th, 2011, (and has not yet been inscribed for hearing) the Supreme Court of Canada (McLachlin C.J.) has dismissed the Manitoba Métis Federation’s motion to state a constitutional question. The lower courts (Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba and the Court of Appeal of Manitoba) based their decisions on laches, lack of fiduciary duty, and mootness. Here’s the dismissal.
In this action for declaratory relief the applicants submit that Canada did not meet the standard expected of a fiduciary during its implementation of the grants provided for in ss. 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, 33 Vict., c. 3 that dealt with land issues. The first, s. 31, provided that 1.4 million acres of land was to be distributed to the “children of the half-breed heads of families”. The second, s. 32, provided that existing land tenures of the residents would be confirmed. During the 1870s and 1880s, Manitoba passed five statutes, now long spent and repealed, dealing with the technical requirements to transfer interests in s. 31 lands. The applicants sought to have the statutes declared ultra vires pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867. Alternatively, they argued that the statutes were inoperative by virtue of federal paramountcy. The trial judge held that the action was barred by the limitation period or laches. There was no fiduciary duty that was owed by the Crown under s. 31 of the Act, and no breach of the Act; there was no fiduciary duty or obligation with respect to s. 32, and the Crown had not erred in its implementation of the section; Manitoba’s legislative initiatives were not unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal applied the doctrine of mootness and declined to address the issue of constitutionality. As to the overarching claim of breach of fiduciary duty, the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s conclusion that the case was statute-barred.
Turtle Talk 