Here’s an updated report card on the Supreme Court Justices’ holdings in Indian Law after yesterday’s United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation decision.
Author: Peter Vicaire
Tax Court of Canada Denies Motion For Advanced Costs For Aboriginals’ Tax Appeals
Here’s the decision – Roberts v. R.
Sexual Assault Conviction of Former President of Nunatsiavut Government Upheld – Sentence Increased
In R. v. Andersen, the Newfoundland and Labador Supreme Court upheld the sexual assault conviction of William Andersen III, former President of the Nunatsiavut Government in Labrador. He was convicted on January 25, 2010. He appealed the conviction and the Crown cross-appealed the (unconditional discharge) sentence.
Andersen represented the Torngat Mountains district in the house of assembly between 1993 and 1996 and later became president of the Nunatsiavut government. He stepped down from that position in November 2007, while the charge was being investigated.
Wellington v. Ontario: Right To Sue Police Investigators For Negligent Investigation?
Recently the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on the issue of whether victims of crime committed by police officers have the right to sue the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) for negligent investigation. The judge determined that there was no such right. The Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto was an intervenor. Here’s the decision.
Black Lake First Nation v. Bigeye: Is Service of Process Proper When The Process Server is Intoxicated?
After being sued for interference in the election of chief and band councillors (intimidating the Chief Electoral Officer) for the Black Lake First Nation, David Bigeye argued that he was not properly served. Here’s an excerpt from Bigeye’s sworn affidavit.
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. R.: Judge Accuses Tribal Cigarette Manufacturer of “Fishing Expedition” In Disclosure Request
In Grand River Emterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. R., the Federal Court of Appeal denied the request of a tribal corporation which manufactured and sold tobacco products on the Six Nations reserve. The corporation requested disclosure of tax information of other incorporated tobacco companies on other reserves on the assertion that there were first nation tobacco manufacturers who were licensed but did not pay excise duty on tobacco products. The judge considered their disclosure request as irrelevant and dismissed.
Montana First Nation v. Rabbit: Alberta’s Tobacco Road
In Montana First Nation v. Rabbit, the Federal Court of Canada recently reinstated the ousted Chief (Carolyn Buffalo) and a Councillor (Leonard Standingontheroad) of Montana First Nation in Alberta. They were temporarily suspended by the remaining Councillors for having brought onto the reserve a significant amount of contraband cigarettes without the required provincial stamp and storing them in a tribal facility. After a break-in and theft of some cigarettes, the RCMP were notified. When the RCMP saw the large amount of cigarettes remaining, they notified the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, which seized them.
Using the three prong test as laid out in RJR-McDonald Inc. v. Canada , [1994] 1 SCR 311 for determining the entitlement of injunctive relief, the court reinstated Buffalo and Standingintheroad.
Durfeld v. Kurkiniemi: It’s Going to Cost Us A Lot Of Money To Build Over That Aboriginal Archaeological Site
In a property dispute between three tenants-in-common families (Durfelds, Sowdens, and Kurkiniemis) who were in the process of partitioning a 12 acre lot on Williams Lake in British Columbia, one of the families (Sowdens) contested the placement of a public access road. Why? Because the placement of the road in the proposed area would result in their property beginning 20 meters to the east, forcing them to spend a lot of money to allow them to build over “quiggly holes,” aboriginal, archaeological underground houses.
Here’s an interesting site describing quiggly holes.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Indian Law Report Card
Click here if you’re interested in seeing a breakdown of how the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have voted in favor of or against Indian interests since 1986 . Continue reading
The Tribe Has Spoken: Ontario Court Rejects First Nation’s Eviction Order of Non-member
Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations v. Landry, a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is a perfect example of the often stark differences between the powers held by Indian tribes in the U.S. and First Nations in Canada. Tribes in the United States enjoy the basic, sovereign right to determine who may enter its territory and under what conditions they may remain. “A tribes’s power to exclude nonmembers entirely or to condition their presence on the reservation is . . . well established.” New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 426 U.S. 324, 333 (1983).
However, on the same issue, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations in Canada had to pass a residency by-law concerning the presence of non-members which then had to be approved by the federal government. After receiving approval by the feds, that by-law was then subject to overview by a provincial court, which has jurisdiction to uphold or reject it.
Ultimately, the provincial court did reject the tribe’s eviction order against the non-member and allowed her to remain on the reserve after she refused to leave, basing its reason on a “core feature of the administration of justice in Canada.” But the $64,000 question raised is why the Band went to a provincial court to enforce its eviction order in the first place.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.