Indigenous Hub

Contains Canadian cases, statutes and regulations. CanLII is a non-profit organization managed by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada whose goal it is to make Canadian law accessible for free on the internet.

The Indigenous Law Centre at the University of Saskatchewan is a depository for Aboriginal law materials

Can search for cases. Provides information about cases such as summaries, webcasts and factums

The B.C. Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada affirms that the Quw’utsun Nation hold Aboriginal title to Tl'uqtinus, their traditional village, in Richmond, B.C., including areas currently held in fee simple by governments and third parties. The court found that Crown grants over these lands unjustifiably infringed Cowichan title and were legally invalid, though it suspended the declaration for 18 months to allow for a transition. This case is significant because it confirms that Aboriginal title cannot be extinguished by Crown grants and challenges the legal foundation of Crown title in B.C.

R. v. Morris, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision that significantly clarified the scope of Aboriginal hunting rights under the Douglas Treaties

Saanichton Marina Ltd. v. Claxton, 1987 CanLII 2805 (also known as Claxton v. Saanichton Marina Ltd. on appeal) was a significant case in Canadian Aboriginal law that upheld the treaty rights of the Tsawout First Nation to fish in Saanichton Bay, British Columbia. it was a landmark case that affirmed the ongoing validity and strength of the Douglas Treaties and the importance of treaty rights

R. v. Bartleman was a significant decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal concerning the interpretation of Aboriginal hunting rights under the Douglas Treaties, specifically the North Saanich Treaty of 1852.

The central issue of this case was whether the hunting rights of White and Bob were protected under a treaty, which would exempt them from the Game Act's restrictions. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of White and Bob, recognizing that the document presented was indeed a "treaty" within the meaning of the Indian Act. This treaty protected their hunting rights, thus excluding the operation of the Game Act. This case was significant as it affirmed the treaty rights of First Nations people, setting a precedent for future Aboriginal rights and title cases in Canada

The Nuchatlaht First Nation, part of the Nuu-chah-nulth people, filed a claim for Aboriginal title over 201 square kilometers of land on Nootka Island, located on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the Nuchatlaht did not prove Aboriginal title over the entire claim area. However, the court recognized that the Nuchatlaht had a strong claim of sufficient occupation for various specific sites within the claim area. The court left the door open for the Nuchatlaht to pursue title to smaller areas within the claim. This case is significant as it provides guidance on how courts will assess Aboriginal title claims, particularly where evidence of use and occupation is stronger in some portions of the claimed area than others. It underscores the importance of detailed historical and cultural evidence in establishing such claims and highlights the challenges Indigenous groups face in proving title over large areas

Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 BCCA 155 was a significant appeal in the ongoing legal battle concerning the Aboriginal fishing rights of the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations. This decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal largely upheld and clarified the broad scope of the Aboriginal right to a commercial fishery that had been declared in the 2009 BCSC 1494 ruling.

N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd., a food processor, was charged under the Fisheries Act for selling and purchasing fish that were not caught under the authority of a commercial fishing license. The fish in question had been caught by Indigenous bands using food fishing licenses, which prohibited the sale or barter of the fish. The central issue was whether the Indigenous bands had an aboriginal right to sell, trade, and barter fish, and if so, whether the regulatory scheme prohibiting such activities was an unjustified infringement of that right.

This case is significant for clarifying the scope and nature of the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia

The Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN), a community within Treaty 8, filed a lawsuit against the Province of British Columbia. They claimed that the cumulative effects of industrial development (such as logging, oil and gas extraction) had significantly impacted their traditional territory, infringing on their Treaty rights. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BRFN, finding that the cumulative effects of industrial development had indeed infringed on their Treaty rights. The court held that the Province had not acted honorably or diligently in upholding the promises of Treaty 8. This case is significant because it was the first time a Canadian court recognized treaty infringement based on the cumulative effects of development. The decision emphasized the need for the Province to consider the cumulative impacts of industrial activities on Treaty rights and to ensure that these rights remain meaningful.

The central issue was whether the Crown had a duty to increase the annuity payments based on the revenue generated from the ceded lands. Justice Patricia Hennessy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favor of the Anishinaabe, declaring that the Crown had a duty to increase the annuities as stipulated in the treaties. The court found that the Crown's interpretation, which capped the payments, was inconsistent with the honor of the Crown and the principles of treaty interpretation. This decision is significant as it underscores the importance of honoring treaty promises and the Crown's fiduciary duty to Indigenous peoples. It also highlights the principle that treaties should be interpreted in a manner that reconciles the interests of both parties.

Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case decided in 2016. The case addressed the legal status of Métis and non-status Indians under the Constitution Act, 1867. The Supreme Court ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are indeed "Indians" under Section 91(24). This means that the federal government has the same responsibilities towards them as it does towards status Indians. This decision clarified the federal government's obligations to Métis and non-status Indians, potentially affecting their access to various programs and services. It also set a precedent for future legal and policy discussions regarding Indigenous rights in Canada

The 2015 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Saik'uz First Nation and Stellat'en First Nation v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. was a pivotal ruling. It allowed the Saik'uz and Stellat'en First Nations to pursue private law claims of nuisance and breach of riparian rights directly against Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) concerning the operations of the Kenney Dam and the diversion of the Nechako River. This was a landmark victory because it meant the First Nations could seek remedies for harm to their Aboriginal rights directly from the private company, rather than first having to fully litigate the scope of their Aboriginal title against the Crown. The decision profoundly reshaped Aboriginal rights litigation in Canada, particularly in cases involving private entities.

Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources) is a significant Supreme Court of Canada case decided in 2014. The case involved the Grassy Narrows First Nation and the Ontario government regarding the jurisdiction over lands covered by Treaty 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Ontario has the jurisdiction to take up lands under Treaty 3 without needing federal approval. This decision was based on the interpretation of the 1891 agreement and the Constitution Act, 1867. This ruling clarified the extent of provincial powers over lands covered by historical treaties and emphasized the importance of provincial jurisdiction in managing natural resources

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case decided in 2014. This case marked the first time that the Court recognized Aboriginal title to a specific tract of land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, recognizing their Aboriginal title to approximately 1,750 square kilometers of land. The Court found that British Columbia had breached its duty to consult and accommodate the Tsilhqot’in Nation

The case involved the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council and the British Columbia Utilities Commission and whether the British Columbia Utilities Commission had a duty to consult the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council before approving a project that altered the timing and flow of water in the Nechako River, which affected the Council's traditional fishing rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the duty to consult arises when the Crown has knowledge of a potential adverse impact on Aboriginal rights or title, even if those rights are unproven. The Court found that the Commission had a duty to consult the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. This case reinforced the principle that the duty to consult is a constitutional obligation that applies to administrative bodies and not just the Crown. It emphasized the importance of meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples in decisions that may affect their rights

A notable Supreme Court of Canada case decided in 2010. The case involved the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation and the Yukon government and whether the Yukon government fulfilled its duty to consult the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation before granting an agricultural land application that affected their traditional territory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Yukon government had adequately consulted the First Nation. The consultation process was deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of the duty to consult. This case reinforced the principles established in previous rulings about the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous peoples, emphasizing the importance of meaningful consultation in land use decisions

The case involved the Ermineskin and Samson Indian Bands, who challenged the Crown's management of their oil and gas royalties. The Supreme Court ruled that the Crown did not unjustly enrich itself nor breach its fiduciary duties. The statutory scheme requiring the Crown to hold the royalties in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and pay interest was upheld. This case clarified the Crown's obligations regarding the management of Indigenous bands' financial assets and reinforced the legal framework governing these transactions

A pivotal Supreme Court of Canada case decided in 2005. The case concerned the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate the Mikisew Cree First Nation regarding the construction of a winter road through their reserve. The Supreme Court ruled that the Crown had a duty to consult and accommodate the Mikisew Cree First Nation. The consultation process undertaken by the Crown was deemed insufficient, as it did not adequately address the concerns of the Mikisew Cree. This case reinforced the importance of the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples, emphasizing that such duties apply even when treaty rights are involved

The case revolved around the duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples before making decisions that might adversely affect their unproven Aboriginal rights and title claims. This case underscored the importance of the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples, setting a precedent for future cases involving Aboriginal rights and title claims.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Crown has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous peoples before making decisions that might adversely affect their claimed but unproven Aboriginal rights and title. This duty arises from the honor of the Crown and exists even if the rights have not yet been legally recognized. This case has had a profound impact on how governments and industries engage with Indigenous communities in Canada, ensuring that their interests are considered in decision-making processes.

The Powley case was pivotal in affirming the constitutional rights of the Métis people and set a precedent for future cases involving Métis rights. It clarified that Métis rights are distinct from those of First Nations and Inuit peoples and must be recognized and respected

The decision affirmed the treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq and other Indigenous groups in the Maritime provinces, emphasizing the importance of historical treaties in contemporary legal contexts

The Supreme Court ruled that section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which mandates that courts consider "all available sanctions other than imprisonment" with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders, applies to all Indigenous people, regardless of whether they live on a reserve. The Court emphasized the need to address the over-representation of Indigenous people in Canadian prisons and to consider restorative justice approaches.

The decision led to the creation of Gladue reports, which provide detailed information on an Indigenous offender's background to help judges make more informed sentencing decisions

A free database for researching Gladue principles in Saskatchewan. Created by the University of Saskatchewan and Legal Aid Saskatchewan.

The Delgamuukw case set important precedents for future land claims and Aboriginal rights cases. It clarified the legal standards for proving Aboriginal title and reinforced the need for governments to negotiate with Indigenous peoples regarding land use and ownership. The Court acknowledged the importance of oral histories in establishing Aboriginal title, marking a significant shift in how evidence is treated in such cases

These are the transcripts of evidence and argument presented in Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010

The fonds consists of three programs, and conference papers for 1998. Conferences include: "Calling people together: beyond the RCAP Report", Feb. 3-5, 1997; "We are all here to stay: the Delgamuukw judgment" Jan. 26, 1998; "Delgamuukw: one year after" Feb. 18-19, 1999. Also included are 10 audio cassettes of the conferences, which are numbered but not identified

The Van der Peet case is crucial because it established a framework for interpreting Indigenous rights under Canadian law. It has been both influential and controversial, as it narrows the scope of what constitutes an Indigenous right compared to earlier rulings.

The court introduced the Van der Peet test, a set of criteria to determine whether an Indigenous right exists. According to this test, the activity in question must be an integral part of the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right and must have origins pre-dating European contact.

R. v. Sioui is a significant Supreme Court of Canada case decided in 1990. The case involved four Huron-Wendat brothers who were charged with illegally camping, starting fires, and cutting down trees in Jacques-Cartier Park in Québec. The main issue was whether the 1760 document signed by General Murray, which guaranteed the Hurons the free exercise of their customs and religion, constituted a treaty and whether it exempted them from provincial regulations. The Supreme Court ruled that the 1760 document was indeed a treaty and that it was still in effect. This treaty protected the customary activities and religious rites of the Hurons, making the provincial regulations unenforceable against them. This ruling transformed understandings of treaty interpretations in Canada, emphasizing the importance of historical context and the protection of Indigenous rights

R v. Sparrow is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that addressed the scope of Aboriginal Rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Sparrow Test: The Court introduced a two-part test to determine if an Aboriginal Right has been infringed and if such an infringement is justified

In Guerin v. The Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the government has a fiduciary duty towards Indigenous peoples.

It acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal Title, even without treaties, which forced the government to reevaluate its policies.

The Queen v. Drybones is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1969. The case involved Joseph Drybones, an Indigenous man convicted under Section 94(b) of the Indian Act for being intoxicated off a reserve in the Northwest Territories. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 94(b) was inoperative because it infringed on the right to equality before the law as guaranteed by Section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. This decision marked the first time the Canadian Bill of Rights was used to strike down federal legislation. It highlighted the power of the Bill of Rights to protect individual freedoms against discriminatory law

The central issue of this case was whether the hunting rights of White and Bob were protected under a treaty, which would exempt them from the Game Act's restrictions. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of White and Bob, recognizing that the document presented was indeed a "treaty" within the meaning of the Indian Act. This treaty protected their hunting rights, thus excluding the operation of the Game Act. This case was significant as it affirmed the treaty rights of First Nations people, setting a precedent for future Aboriginal rights and title cases in Canada

The Reference Re Eskimos case, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1939, addressed whether the term "Indians" in section 91(24) of the British North America Act, 1867, included the Inuit (then referred to as "Eskimos"). The court ruled that for the purposes of section 91(24), Inuit are considered "Indians".