Aboriginal Rights

More Spying by the Canadian Government–Child Welfare Edition

Kate Fort

The article is in the Toronto Star:

Why is the federal government spying on Cindy Blackstock?

When does a life-long advocate for aboriginal children become an enemy of the state?

The answer, it would seem, is when you file a human rights complaint accusing your government of willfully underfunding child welfare services to First Nations children on reserves.

Accusing your government, in other words, of racial discrimination.

That’s what Blackstock, as executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, did in 2007.

Since that time, federal officials attended 75 to 100 meetings at which she spoke, then reported back to their bosses.

They went on her Facebook page during work hours, then assigned a bureaucrat to sign on as himself after hours to check it again looking for testimony from the tribunal.

On at least two occasions, they pulled her Status Indian file and its personal information, including data on her family.

H/T to our Senior Canadian Correspondent.

Self-Government For Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia?

Peter Scott Vicaire

CTV recently released (October 4) a tiny story on what could be a monolithic advancement for the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, and in turn for aboriginals throughout Canada.  Here’s the story.  However, be forewarned, this small piece, not even 200 words, barely offers any substance and reads more like an Onion article (“[O]ne of the most pressing details to work out for the Mi’kmaq is to find a place to put a House of Assembly”).   And perhaps tellingly, Federal Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister John Duncan would not offer comment on it.  Curioser and curioser.  Stay tuned…

British Columbia Court of Appeal Dismisses Vancouver’s Appeal Against Musqueam Indian Band

Peter Scott Vicaire1 Comment

The court didn’t agree with the Greater Vancouver Regional District’s argument that the recent Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act was ultra vires the province’s power because “it is, in pith and substance, a law in relation to ‘Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.'”  The decision is here.

Continue reading →

Tzeachten First Nation v. Canada Lands Co.

Peter Scott Vicaire

An application by Canada Lands Co. to dismiss an action brought by Chief Joe Hall on behalf of the members of Tzeachten First Nation, the Skowkale First Nation and the Yakweakwioose First Nation, was rejected by the British Columbia Supreme Court.  Canada Lands Co. claimed that Tzeachan’s action was barred by res judicata.  Alternatively, Canada Lands Co. asked that the claim be struck because it disclosed no reasonable claim or was an abuse of process. 

The judge denied the application.  Here’s the decision.

Campbell v. British Columbia: Costs Awarded To Crown and Sunshine Logging

Peter Scott Vicaire

There’s no legal sunshine for the unsuccessful aboriginal petitioners (Sinixt Nation Society, Representative Body of the Sinixt Nation) who were not only deemed to have no standing back in February, but now the B.C Supreme Court has also awarded costs to both the Crown and Sunshine Logging Ltd.  Here’s the decision.  It provides an interesting analysis of costs in the context of what constitutes public interest actions.

Continue reading →

Louis v. British Columbia: Crown Acted Honourably – Discharged Its Duty To Consult Obligation

Peter Scott Vicaire1 Comment

It looks like Chief Reginald Louis and members of the Stellat’en First Nation are out of luck.  They sought judicial review and a number of orders on the basis that the provincial Crown (B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources) failed to adequately and meaningfully consult them.  Their concern was in relation to a mine located on land over which they have asserted Aboriginal title and rights.  Here’s the decision.

Continue reading →

Sun Peaks Resort Added as Respondent In Forthcoming “Duty to Consult” Appeal

Peter Scott Vicaire1 Comment

Back in March, we reported on the Adams Lake Band’s successful duty to consult petition.  Recently, in that same case, the Sun Peaks Resort was successful in being added as a respondent in the appeal.  Here it is.

Continue reading →

Gitxsan Nation v. Gitxsan Treaty Society: No Reasonable Cause of Action

Peter Scott Vicaire

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge recently dismissed an action by the Gitxsan Nation against the Gitxsan Treaty Society (“GTS”) (oppression); Canada and British Columbia (breach of fiduciary duty and of duty of honour) and; the British Columbia Treaty Commission (negligence).

The plaintiffs’ complaint is that over the years the GTS has unduly restricted the involvement of the plaintiff hereditary chiefs and Indian bands in treaty negotiations. They complain that, amongst other things, GTS has declined to take direction or input from the Gitxsan chiefs, restricted debate on matters of concern to all Gitxsan, and conducted its affairs in a secretive and “oppressive” manner that was unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiffs.

Continue reading →

Manitoba Aboriginal Man Charged With Second Degree Murder Forwards Bizarre Defense

Peter Scott Vicaire

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.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Affirms Aboriginal Status Rights in Two Tax Cases

Peter Scott Vicaire

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.

Continue reading →