The Supreme Court of Canada hearings in Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and Tsilhqot’in Nation v. Province of British Columbia have been made available on the CPAC website and can be found here.
Supreme Court of Canada
Toronto Star Column on Elsipogtog and Canadian Law
Here.
In 1997, the landmark Supreme Court Decision in Delgamuukw finally clarified that even under Canadian law, Aboriginal title to most of the land within British Columbia’s provincial borders had never been extinguished. This ruling had immediate implications for other areas of the country where no treaties ceding land ownership were ever signed. One day, Canadians woke up to a legal reality in which millions of acres of land were recognized as never having been acquired by the Crown, and that elephant has been occupying our national room ever since.
Unfortunately, this glaring issue did not seem to percolate into the wider Canadian consciousness, and many people remain unaware of it. In 1999, the Supreme Court passed down another judgement confirming that the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760-1761 did not cede land or resources. This cannot be emphasized strongly enough: the Mi’kmaq never gave up legal rights to their land or resources. Canada does not own the land that the people of Elsipogtog are defending.
This is not conspiracy theory, or indigenous interpretation. This is Canadian law, interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, applying Canadian constitutional principles. Yet somehow, this most important fact is left out of most reports on Elsipogtog as though it is barely relevant.
Tsilhqot’in Nation Aboriginal Rights Case in Canada Supreme Court Today — William v. R.
Behn v. Moulton Contracting, Supreme Court of Canada Says Blockades Are An Abuse of Process
Decision here.
Coverage here.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that individual members of an Aboriginal group can’t use blockades or other “self-help” remedies when claiming a government breached its duty to consult, and in fact doing so amounted to “an abuse of process.”
In Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd., the SCC dismissed an appeal from individual band members of the Fort Nelson First Nation and endorsed the position taken by two lower B.C. courts.
Among the issues addressed by the SCC was whether it amounts to an abuse of process for Aboriginal individuals — in this case all with the last name Behn — to challenge the validity of government issued authorizations as a defence to a legal claim when they failed to take legal action to challenge the government’s authorization.
From one of our senior Canadian correspondents.
SCT of Canada Orders Lower Courts to Consider Aboriginal History When Sentencing Natives
Here is the opinion in R. v. Ipeelee.
An excerpt from the Court’s syllabus:
When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, a judge must consider the factors outlined in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection. Systemic and background factors may bear on the culpability of the offender, to the extent that they shed light on his or her level of moral blameworthiness. Failing to take these circumstances into account would violate the fundamental principle of sentencing— that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Gladue principles direct sentencing judges to abandon the presumption that all offenders and all communities share the same values when it comes to sentencing and to recognize that, given these fundamentally different world views, different or alternative sanctions may more effectively achieve the objectives of sentencing in a particular community. The principles from Gladue are entirely consistent with the requirement that sentencing judges engage in an individualized assessment of all of the relevant factors and circumstances, including the status and life experiences, of the person standing before them. Gladue affirms this requirement and recognizes that, up to this point, Canadian courts have failed to take into account the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders that bear on the sentencing process. Section 718.2(e) is intended to remedy this failure by directing judges to craft sentences in a manner that is meaningful to Aboriginal peoples.
News coverage here.
H/t to RK.
Canadian Anishinabek First Nation Protests Against Mining Exploration
THUNDER BAY, ON, March 17 /CNW/ – Anishinabek Nation leadership are
demonstrating their support for a Treaty 9 community whose chief was prepared
to go to jail for refusing to allow a mining company to conduct exploration
activity on traditional territory.
Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare represented the 42 member communities of the
Anishinabek Nation at the Ontario Superior Court building today where
Judge Patrick Smith sentenced Chief Donny Morris of Kitchenuhmaykoosib
Inninuwug and six council members to six months in prison for contempt of
court. The councillors of the fly-in First Nation about 600 km north of
Thunder Bay defied an Oct. 25 court order granting Platinex Inc. access to
Big Trout Lake, which the First Nation claim as ancestral land.
Turtle Talk 