Here’s an interesting case concerning the criminal defense by an Aboriginal man in Manitoba charged with second degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. Though his argument (Canada has no jurisdiction over him because he’s aboriginal) is certainly not novel, the manner in which it is presented is actually quite bizarre. It’s worth a quick read – R. v. Campbell.
Aboriginal Rights
Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Aboriginal Status Rights in Two Tax Cases
On July 22nd, (I know it’s late, but I just moved!) the Supreme Court of Canada upheld appeals in favor of aboriginal interests in two important cases, Bastien Estate v. Canada and Dubé v. R. Here’s an interesting and informative (pre-decision) commentary by Katherine MacLellan on Indian Act s. 87 taxation.
In Bastien Estate, the Supreme Court ruled that Roland Bastien, (now deceased for six years) a Huron man who took out term deposits at a credit union did not have to pay tax on the interest he earned on his investment. For 27 years, Bastien ran a small handbeaded moccasin business on the Wendake Reserve (near Quebec City), where he also invested some of the income from the operation and sale of his business in term deposits with a caisse populaire (a credit union), also on his reserve. Bastien believed the income was exempt from taxation under s. 87 of the Indian Act.
However, the Canada Revenue Agency disagreed, and added the term deposit investment income to his income for 2001. His estate representatives appealed the decision but lost at both the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. Both lower courts ruled that the caisse populaire generated its revenues outside the reserve, not on it, and therefore the interest paid to Mr. Bastien was not exempt from taxation.
But the Supreme Court rejected that opinion and found that the lower courts gave too much weight to the fact that the credit union produced its revenues in the “commercial mainstream” off the reserve.
The companion case to Bastien, Dubé v. The Queen, involved Alexandre Dubé, an Attikamek aboriginal, who was also found to be exempt from tax on interest he earned on term deposits with an on-reserve credit union.
Aboriginal Peoples Television Network May Get Access to Human Rights Tribunal Concerning Aboriginal Child Welfare
A Federal Court judge recently set aside a decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal which denied the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) access to hearings concerning allegations of inequitable funding of child welfare services on First Nations reserves. Here’s the decision.
The aboriginal parties (Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society) alleged that the inequitable funding amounted to discrimination on the basis of race and national ethnic origin, contrary to section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6.
B.C. Supreme Court Keeps Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights Severed
In B.C. (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, the province sought direction, for an upcoming (November) trial, on the issue of the band mixing aboriginal title and aboriginal right, which had been severed into two different phases of the trial.
B.C. argued that Okanagan First Nation was incorrectly introducing the title issue during the rights phase, but Okanagan disagreed, stating that the question of the Crown’s burden of proof to establish that the timber was Crown timber has always been an issue in the case, and in the severed trial, and that their recent (May) notice of a constitutional question simply clarifies that position.
The judge found in favor of the province, holding that the notice of constitutional question will be deferred to the second phase.
Moulton Contracting v. British Columbia: Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights
Here’s an interesting case for civil disobedience-minded aboriginals to remember. In Moulton Contracting v. B.C., several members of the Behn family of Fort Nelson First Nation blockaded a logging road which they had traplines on. They did so because, they asserted, British Columbia did not consult with Fort Nelson in any meaningful way and because the logging (done by Moulton Contracting) interfered with their Treaty 8 rights.
However, the trial judge struck these paragraphs of their statement of defence out (and the appellate court affirmed) because, the court held, individual members of the Fort Nelson First Nation did not have standing to advance the legal positions set out in those paragraphs because the rights asserted were collective rights of the Aboriginal community.
R. v. Paul: Cabin Fever In A New Brunswick Provincial Court
In R. v. Paul, a New Brunswick Provincial Court (Woodstock) determined that an aboriginal right to hunt does not necessarily include the right to build a private hunting cabin on Crown lands.
Leave To Intervene Granted In Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. British Columbia
The British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association was granted leave to intervene in an appeal from an order certifying a class action involving the Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation. Here’s the decision. Below is an excerpt.
Repeal of Canadian Human Rights Act s. 67 – Good For Individual Aboriginals ~ Very Bad For First Nations
John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, announced on Friday that s. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act would be repealed, as of June 18th. This was done to “ensure First Nations people have the same protection of their human rights as other Canadians.” Therefore, as of Saturday, any decisions made or actions taken by band councils and the federal government, made under or pursuant to the Indian Act, will be fully subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
West Moberly First Nation Added As Third Party In Upcoming Appeal
In Colonial Coal Corp. v. B.C. (Regional Manager), the British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board allowed West Moberly First Nation to be added, in part, as a third party to an appeal by Colonial Coal Corporation.
Algonquins of Barriere Lake vs Section 74 of the Indian Act
Here’s an interesting and succinct (3:47) video explaining the ongoing struggle of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake to retain their traditional form of government, against the wishes of the Canadian government.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.