Here’s the Supreme Court of Canada’s report card in Aboriginal law. Since the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, the court has found in favour (the “u” is added for all our dear Canadian friends) of Aboriginal interests a total of 21/64 times, or 32.8%. The current make-up of the court (McLachlin, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein, and Cromwell) have individually found in favour of Aboriginal interests 65/175 times, or 37.1%.
Author: Peter Vicaire
Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General): Unanimous Decision Against Lax Kw’alaams?
Back in March, we posted about the Supreme Court’s granting of leave to appeal to the Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band, in regard to their claimed aboriginal fishing rights.
Here’s the materials:
Appellant – Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band Factum
Respondent – Attorney General of Canada Factum
The hearing was held on 2-17-2011 and there’s finally been some time found to watch the oral arguments. If the Indigenous Law & Policy Center was a betting organization, it would predict that a 7-0 decision in favor of Canada will be forthcoming. You heard it here, folks! Below is a quick summary of the hearing.
Department of Indian Affairs ~ Department of Aboriginal Affairs. What’s In a Name?
After the recent election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper shuffled his relatively large cabinet (39 Ministers) around and after the political dust settled, John Duncan remained in his former position as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. But Indian and Northern Affairs Canada underwent a name change; it is now called Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The name change has been met with trepidation by some, while others heartily welcome it.
Alas, if only getting rid of the Indian Act were so easy.
Here’s an article from the Globe and Mail.
Winnipeg Court Finds Against Dakota Tipi First Nation in Wrongful Dismissal Action
In Lounsbury v. Dakota Tipi First Nation, [2011] M.J. No. 138, Judge Saull, of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench (Winnipeg Centre), found in favor of Bonnie Lounsbury, a health care services coordinator who was employed by the Dakota Tipi First Nation. She was awarded $143,965.95 in damages, “solicitor-client costs” (unknown amount) and $10,000 in punitive damages after bringing suit for wrongful dismissal.
Merchant Law Group Contests $3000 In Lawsuit Concerning Indian Residential Schools Settlement Assignment of Proceeds
Recently, the Merchant Law Group, a law firm which was a major player in the Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, was in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, arguing that a $3000 unpaid assignment of debt from one of its clients (a former residential school student) should not be entered against the law firm.
The assignment was provided to the client by Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) which argued that Merchant Law Group is now liable to pay it because of its failure to honor the Assignment of Proceeds when the firm issued money to the client. The decision is here.
Here’s a few gems from the decision:
Da’naxda’xw/Awaetlala First Nation v. British Columbia: Minister of Environment Failed to Fulfill Constitutional Duty To Consult
In Da’naxda’xwAwaetlala First Nation v. British Columbia, the First Nation received judicial review by the B.C. Supreme Court of a decision made by the Minister of Environment, seeking to quash the Minister’s decision on four grounds.
Federal Court of Appeal (Winnipeg) Gives a Good Old Fashioned Slap-down to Judge Finding In Favor of Aboriginal Interests
In Brokenhead First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal, in no uncertain terms, allowed the Crown’s appeal against the respondent, Brokenhead First Nation. The appeal concerned a decision finding that the government of Canada had breached its duty to consult the respondents when it transferred former army barracks land/treaty land situated in Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Canada Lands Company, a non-agent Crown corporation.
Supreme Court of Canada Discusses Crown’s Fiduciary Duty to First Nations
In yesterday’s Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, a Supreme Court case concerning the provinces’ fiduciary responsibility for the cost of medical care in nursing homes, the Court discussed at length, the Crown’s fiduciary duty in the context of Aboriginal law. Below are some excerpts (citations removed).
Obonsawin v. R.: Assessed For Failure To Collect Tax Does Not Equate To Being Taxed
In Obonsawin v. R., a case in the Federal Court of Appeal, Roger Obonsawin was appealing a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, which dimissed, with costs, his appeal against the Minister of National Revenue.
Obonsawin was a supplier of goods and argued that he was not obligated to collect and remit the GST owed by his clients on the supplies he provided to them. He claimed that, pursuant to section 87 of the Indian Act, he was exempt from taxation and the GST assessments against him amounted to a tax on his property situated on a reserve or a tax on him in respect of that property.
Senator Patrick Brazeau: Canadian Wolf in Aboriginal Clothing?
Patrick Brazeau, an Aboriginal (Algonquin from Maniwaki/Kitigan Zibi) and currently the youngest serving Canadian senator (he’s 36), was appointed in 2009 by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He has since become a controversial figure, sparked by his originally stated, but subsequently withdrawn, intention to serve in the Senate and also keep his position as National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP represents non-status and off-reserve aboriginals) and thus collecting two publicly-funded six-figure salaries; allegedly condoning heavy drinking during business hours; a sexual harrassment complaint; and the alleged misspending of CAP funds in the area of $260,000.
But mainly, he’s controversial because many Aboriginals consider him a Conservative Canadian wolf in Aboriginal clothing.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.