DOCSLIB.ORG

CHIPPEWAS of the THAMES FIRST NATION APPELLANT (Appellant) AND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

File No. 36776 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FREDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: CHIPPEWAS OF THE THAMES FIRST NATION APPELLANT (Appellant) AND: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD THEATTORNEYGENERALOFCANADA RESPONDENTS (Respondents) AND: MOHAWK COUNCIL OF KAHNAW A:KE MISSISSAUGAS OF THE NEW CREDIT FIRST NATION CHIEFS OF ONTARIO NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN SUNCOR ENERGY MARKETING INC. INTERVENERS (lnterveners) APPELLANT'S FACTUM IN REPLY TO THE INTERVENERS FILED BY THE CHIPPEWAS OF THE THAMES FIRST NATION (Pursuant to the Order of Justice Gascon dated September 13, 2016) Counsel for the Appellant, Agent for Counsel for the Appellant, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation: Chippewas of the Thames First Nation: David Nahwegahbow & Scott Robertson Moira S. Dillon Nahwegahbow, Corbiere Supreme Law Group I 09-5884 Rama Rd. 900 - 275 Slater Street Rama, ON L3V 6H6 Ottawa, ON KIP 5H9 Tel: (705) 325-0520 Tel: (613) 691-1224 Fax: (705) 325-7204 Fax: (613) 691-1338 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Agent Counsel for the Respondent, Enbridge Pipelines Inc.: Enbridge Pipelines Inc.: Douglas Crowther & Joshua Jantzi Scott McLean & Corey Villeneuve Dentons Canada LLP Dentons Canada LLP 15th Floor, Bankers Court 99 Bank Street S50-2nd Street SW Ottawa, ON KIP 1H4 Calgary, AB T2P ORS Tel: (613) 7S3-9665/7S3-6996 Tel: (403) 26S-7000 Fax: (613) 7S3-9690 Fax: (403) 268 3100 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Agent for the Respondent, The National Energy Board: The National Energy Board: Kristen Lozynsky & Jody Saunders Colin Baxter & Michelle Groundwater National Energy Board Conway Baxter Wilson LLP 517 Tenth Avenue SW 401-1111 Prince of Wales Drive Calgary, AB T2R OAS Ottawa, ON K2C 3T2 Tel: (403) 299-3170/ 299-2715 Tel: (613) 7S0-2012/7S0-2016 Fax: (403) 299-2710 Fax: (613) 6S8-0271 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Agent for the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada: Attorney General of Canada: Peter Southey Christopher Rupar Department of Justice Canada Office of the Attorney General of Canada The Exchange Tower 50 O'Connor Street 130 King Street West Suite 500, Room 557 Suite 3400, Box 36 Ottawa, ON KIA OHS Toronto, Ontario MSX I K6 Tel: (613) 941-2351 Tel: (416) 973-0942 Fax: (613) 954-1920 Fax: (416) 973-0S90 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Dayna S. Anderson Department of Justice Canada 310 Broadway Suite 301 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C OS6 Tel: (204) 983-2391 Fax: (204) 984-6488 Email: [email protected] Sarah Bird Department of Justice Canada 10th Floor, 123 2nd Ave. South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 7E6 Tel: (306) 975-4756 Fax: (306) 975-4030 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General for Ontario: Attorney General for Ontario: Manizeh Fancy Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Attorney General of Ontario Burke-Robertson 720 Bay Street 441 MacLaren Street 8th Floor Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M7A2S9 K2P 2H3 Telephone: (416) 314-2177 Telephone: (613) 236-9665 FAX: (416) 326-4181 FAX: (613) 235-4430 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General for Saskatchewan: Attorney General for Saskatchewan: Richard James Fyfe D. Lynne Watt Attorney General for Saskatchewan Gowling WLG (Canada) Inc. Constitutional Law Branch, 8th Floor 160 Elgin Street 820, 1874 Scarth St. Suite 2600 Regina, Saskatchewan Ottawa, Ontario S4P 4B3 KIP 1C3 Telephone: (306) 787-7886 Telephone: (613) 786-8695 FAX: (306) 787-9111 FAX: (613) 788-3509 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board: Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy LLP Supreme Advocacy LLP 100 - 340 Gilmour Street 100- 340 Gilmour Street Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario K2P OR3 K2P OR3 Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 101 Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 FAX: (613) 695-8580 FAX: (613) 695-8580 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Suncor Energy Marketing Inc.: Suncor Energy Marketing Inc.: Martin Ignasiak, W. David Rankin & Patricia J. Wilson Heather Weberg Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 340 Albert Street 450 - 1st Street S.W. Suite 1900 Suite 2500, TransCanada Tower Ottawa, Ontario Calgary, Alberta KlR 7Y6 T2P SHI Telephone: (613) 787-1009 Telephone: (403) 260-7007 FAX: (613) 235-2867 FAX: (403) 260-7024 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Mohawk Council of Kahnawa:ke: Mohawk Council of Kahnawa:ke: Francis Walsh Justin Dubois Mohawk Council of Kahnawa:ke Legal Juristes Power Services 130, rue Albert P.O. Box 720 Bureau 1103 Mohawk Territory of Kahnawa:ke, Quebec Ottawa, Ontario JOL IBO KIP 504 Telephone: (450) 632-7500 Telephone: (613) 702-5560 FAX: (450) 638-3663 FAX: (613) 702-5560 E-mail: francis. [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, .Agent for the Intervener, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation: Nation: Jason Madden, Nori G. Frame & Jessica Matthew Estabrooks Labranche Gowling WLG (Canada) Inc. Pape Salter Teillet 2600 - 160 Elgin Street 546 Euclid A venue P.O. Box 466, Stn. A Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M6G2T2 KIP 1C3 Telephone: (416) 916-2989 Telephone: (613) 786-0211 FAX: (416) 916-3726 FAX: (613) 788-3573 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Chiefs of Ontario: Chiefs of Ontario: Maxime Faille & Jaimie Lickers Guy Regimbald Gowling WLG (Canada) Inc. Gowling WLG (Canada) Inc. 2600-160 Elgin Street 160 Elgin Street P.O. Box 466, Station D Suite 2600 Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario KIP IC3 KIP IC3 Telephone: (613) 233-1781 Telephone: (613) 786-0197 FAX: (613) 563-9869 FAX: (613) 563-9869 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab: Document: Page: 1 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT 1 PART I: OVERVIEW & POSITION 1 PART II: STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT 2 A. The Board Does Not Have Implied Jurisdiction to Engage in Consultation 2 B. Constitutional Remedies must uphold Constitutional Obligations 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 8 2 AUTHORITIES 9 Cases A. Mitchell v Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 SCR 85 9 B. Nowegijick v The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR 29 12 C. News Release, Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Government ofCanada 26 Moves Forward with National Energy Board Modernization (Ottawa: November 8, 2016) D. Kent W. Roach, Constitutional Remedies in Canada, loose-leaf (consulted 28 on 17 November 2016), 2d ed (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2016) E. Patrick Macklem, "The Form and Substance of Aboriginal Rights: 37 Assimilation, Recognition, Reconciliation" (August 23, 2016) forthcoming in N. Des Rosiers, P. Macklem & P. Oliver, eds, The Oxford Handbook ofthe Canadian Constitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) 1 PART I: OVERVIEW & POSITION 1. This Reply of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (the "Appellant") responds primarily to the following interveners in this appeal: the Attorney General of Saskatchewan ("Saskatchewan"), the Attorney General of Ontario ("Ontario") and Suncor Energy Marketing Inc. ("Suncor"). The Appellant generally agrees with the arguments advanced by the interveners Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation ("MNCFN"), the Chiefs of Ontario ("COO") and Mohawk Council of Kahnawa:ke ("MCK"). Failure to address any particular intervener or argument should not be construed as agreement with that intervener or argument. 2. Saskatchewan and Ontario take the position that the National Energy Board (the "Board") has implied jurisdiction to fully discharge the Crown's duty to consult under s. 58 of the National Energy Board Act (the NEB Act). 1 Saskatchewan further asserts that the duty to consult is, at its core, "a practical doctrine", which must reflect the need for government flexibility in meeting its consultation obligations. 2 3. The interpretation of s. 58 of the NEB Act put forward by Saskatchewan and Ontario is inconsistent with the constitutional obligations of the Crown to Indigenous peoples. The notions of practicality and government flexibility should not displace established constitutional precepts and interpretive principles. A tribunal's authority to conduct consultation should not be determined by assessing whether its process is more expedient or cost-effective for the Crown or an industry proponent. 4. Suncor takes no position on the issue of the Board's jurisdiction, but proposes a remedial framework for situations when the Crown's duty to consult "falls through the cracks". 3 Suncor argues that the impac~ of a proposed remedy on third parties should "weigh heavily" in the analysis, and suggests that the framework should focus on the "practical utility" of the remedy. 4 5. Suncor's proposal lacks both precedent and authority. It also opposes any framework that would result in an order quashing an invalid decision, which the Appellant submits is required 1 National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985, c N-7, s. 58 [NEB Act]. 2 Intervener's Factum, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, para 4, 10-28. 3 Chippewas ofthe Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc, 2015 FCA 222, at para 126, [2016] 3 FCR 96 [Chippewas ofthe Thames]. 4 Intervener's Factum, Suncor Energy Marketing Inc, para 15.
Recommended publications
  • LSO Report Template

    LSO Report Template

    Tab 6 Ryerson University Proposed Integrated Practice Curriculum Professional Development & Competence Committee April 25, 2019 Committee Members: Peter Wardle (Chair) Jacqueline Horvat (Vice-Chair) Anne Vespry (Vice-Chair) Jack Braithwaite Christopher Bredt Dianne Corbiere Teresa Donnelly Howard Goldblatt Joseph Groia Michelle Haigh Barb Murchie Andrew Spurgeon Catherine Strosberg Sidney Troister Authored By: Margaret Drent [email protected] [Date] Ryerson University Proposed IPC Table of Contents Motion ................................................................................................................................ 2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 2 A. Context ....................................................................................................................... 2 B. Previous Decisions ...................................................................................................... 3 C. Policy Objective ........................................................................................................... 3 Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 3 A. Framework .................................................................................................................. 3 B. Recommendations and Rationale ............................................................................... 4 Implementation .................................................................................................................
  • Algonquin Law on Access and Benefit Sharing Larry Mcdermott and Peigi Wilson

    Algonquin Law on Access and Benefit Sharing Larry Mcdermott and Peigi Wilson

    Exploring the Right to Diversity in Conservation Law, Policy, and Practice ‘Ginawaydaganuk’: Algonquin Law on Access and Benefit Sharing Larry McDermott and Peigi Wilson Abstract Ginawaydaganuk, which is loosely translated as the interconnection of all things, is an Algonquin law outlining our responsibilities to each other and the earth. It is the basis of an 18th-century agreement between the French, the English, and the Algonquin to respect Algonquin law and share the resources of Algonquin territory. Three centuries later, Canada and the other parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are negotiating a new access and benefit sharing regime, but in doing so, Canada is ignoring its historic and current obligations to the Algonquin and other Indigenous Peoples in Canada. This paper explores the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples in Canada from environmental decision-making, the resulting decline of Indigenous cultures, and the interrelated decline in biological diversity. It argues that reconciling the rights of Indigenous Peoples with State sovereignty in an Access and Benefit Sharing Protocol is an essential means to support the retention of Indigenous cultures and reverse the decline of biological diversity. A new international law on access and benefit sharing (ABS) is currently being negotiated by the 193 Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The discussion of access to and sharing of benefits from genetic resources and Indigenous knowledge brings into focus conflicting worldviews about the
  • The Nature of Property

    The Nature of Property

    The Nature of Property ................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction & The “Properties” of Property ............................................................................................... 4 C.B MacPherson, “The Meaning of Property” ......................................................................................... 5 T.W. Merrill, “Property and the Right to Exclude” ................................................................................... 5 Yanner v Eaton 1999, High Court of Australia .......................................................................................... 5 Harrison v Carswell 1974, SCC ................................................................................................................. 6 The Case for Private Property & Novel Claims ............................................................................................. 7 C. Lewis, “The Right to Private Property in a New Political Dispensation in South Africa” ...................... 11 International News Service v Associated Press (1918) US Supreme Court ............................................. 12 Novel Claims and Restrictions on New Property Interests ......................................................................... 15 Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Ltd v Taylor .................................................................... 15 Moore v. Regents of the University of California (Cal Sup Ct. 1990) ......................................................
  • Public Interest, Private Property Law and Planning Policy in Canada

    Public Interest, Private Property Law and Planning Policy in Canada

    Public Interest, Private Property Law and Planning Policy in Canada Edited by Anneke Smit and Marcia Valiante Sample Material © 2015 UBC Press © UBC Press 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright, www.accesscopyright.ca . 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in Canada on FSC-certifi ed ancient-forest-free paper (100% post-consumer recycled) that is processed chlorine- and acid-free. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Public interest, private property : law and planning policy in Canada / edited by Anneke Smit and Marcia Valiante. Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued in print and electronic formats. ISBN 978-0-7748-2931-1 (bound). – ISBN 978-0-7748-2933-5 (pdf).– ISBN 978-0-7748-2934-2 (epub). – ISBN 978-0-7748-2992-2 (mobi) 1. City planning and redevelopment law–Canada. 2. Right of property– Canada. I. Smit, Anneke, author, editor II. Valiante, Marcia, 1953–, author, editor KE5258.P82 2015 346.71045 C2015-903391-8 KF5692.P82 2015 C2015-903392-6 UBC Press gratefully acknowledges the fi nancial support for our publishing program of the Government of Canada (through the Canada Book Fund), the Canada Council for the Arts, and the British Columbia Arts Council. UBC Press Th e University of British Columbia 2029 West Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 www.ubcpress.ca Sample Material © 2015 UBC Press Contents Foreword / ix DAVID MILLER Acknowledgments / xiii Introduction / 1 MARCIA VALIANTE AND ANNEKE SMIT PART 1 Contextualizing Canadian Private Property and Public Planning 1 Private Property in Historical and Global Contexts and Its Lessons for Planning / 37 HARVEY M.
  • The Economic Characteristics of Indigenous Property Rights: a Canadian Case Study, 95 Neb

    The Economic Characteristics of Indigenous Property Rights: a Canadian Case Study, 95 Neb

    Nebraska Law Review Volume 95 | Issue 2 Article 4 2016 The conomicE Characteristics of Indigenous Property Rights: A Canadian Case Study Dwight Newman University of Saskatchewan College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Dwight Newman, The Economic Characteristics of Indigenous Property Rights: A Canadian Case Study, 95 Neb. L. Rev. 432 (2016) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol95/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Dwight Newman* The Economic Characteristics of Indigenous Property Rights: A Canadian Case Study TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 433 II. The Nature of Aboriginal Title Within the Canadian Judicial Interpretation ................................ 439 A. Background ....................................... 439 © Copyright held by the NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW * Visiting Fellow, James Madison Program, Princeton University (2015–2016); Professor of Law & Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitu- tional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan; Senior Fellow, Mac- donald-Laurier Institute; June 2015 Lone Mountain Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center (PERC); B.A. (Reg.), J.D. (Sask.), B.C.L., M. Phil., D. Phil. (Oxon.), member of the Ontario and Saskatchewan bars. The bulk of this Article was completed while in residence at the Property and Environment Re- search Center (PERC) in Bozeman as a Lone Mountain Fellow in June 2015. It was presented in a reasonably full form at a PERC seminar, and PERC’s robust interdisciplinary environment contributed enormously to the Article.
  • Editorial Board—Comité De Rédaction 2020

    Editorial Board—Comité De Rédaction 2020

    VOLUME 71 2020 TOME 71 EDITORIAL BOARD—COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION 2020 Editors-in-Chief Associate Editors 2020 CanLIIDocs 3123 MITCHELL MCGOWAN SHANNON BENJAMIN ALEXANDER RIMMINGTON ALEXANDRA DEJONG Rédacteurs en chef CAITLIN GALLANT EMILY MACLEOD Rédactrices adjointes Honourary Editor-in-Chief Volunteer Associate Editors THE HON. G. V. LA FOREST JOHN CALDWELL Rédacteur en chef honoraire DELANEY STYMIEST-LOSIER Rédactrice et rédacteur adjoints bénévoles Faculty Advisors ANNE WARNER LA FOREST JANE THOMSON Conseillères academiques TO BE CITED AS: (2020) 71 UNBLJ MODE DE RÉFÉRENCE : (2020) 71 RD UN-B ISSN: 0077-8141 Copyright 2020 Droits d’auteur University of New Brunswick Law Journal © Revue de droit de l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick Printed in Canada—Imprimé au Canada Since 1947, the University of New Depuis 1947, la Revue de droit de Brunswick Law Journal has published l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick a articles, comments, and reviews in wide- publié des articles, des commentaires, et ranging areas of law. The Journal is des avis juridiques dans plusieurs produced by students from the Faculty of domaines du droit. La Revue est publiée Law at the University of New Brunswick par les étudiants de la Faculté de Droit de with the advice of one or more faculty l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick sous members. The objective of the Journal is to la direction d’un ou plusieurs membres du promote academic discussion of current corps professoral. L’objectif de la Revue legal issues, problems, and philosophies. est de promouvoir les discussions académiques concernant les The Journal expresses its gratitude to all préoccupations, problèmes et philosophies past and present supporters including the juridiques actuels.
  • The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

    The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History

    The Osgoode Society For Canadian Legal History ANNUAL REPORT 2011 THE SEAL OF THE SOCIETY, REPRODUCED ON THE COVER OF THIS REPORT, REFLECTS AN Introduction ELEMENT OF THE ARMS OF JOHN BEVERLEY THE OSGOODE SOCIETY WAS INCORPORATED IN MAY OF ROBINSON FROM WHOM THE LAND ON WHICH 1979. IN 1993 IT BECAME THE OSGOODE SOCIETY FOR OSGOODE HALL IS BUILT WAS PURCHASED BY CANADIAN LEGAL HISTORY. FOUNDED AT THE INITIATIVE THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA IN 1829. OF R. ROY MCMURTRY, A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CHIEF JUSTICE OF ONTARIO, AND OFFICIALS OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, ITS PURPOSE IS TO STUDY AND PROMOTE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE HISTORY OF THE LAW, THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND THE JUDICIARY IN ONTARIO AND ELSEWHERE IN CANADA AND TO STIMULATE RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ON THESE SUBJECTS. AMONG THE SOCIETY'S ACTIVITIES ARE ITS PUBLICATIONS PROGRAMME, AN ORAL HISTORY PROGRAMME, AND A RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAMME TO ASSIST SCHOLARS DOING RESEARCH IN CANADIAN LEGAL HISTORY. THE SOCIETY'S INTENTION IS THAT ITS ANNUAL PUBLICATION WILL BE FUNDED BY MEMBERSHIP FEES. THE CONTINUATION OF RELATED EFFORTS WILL DEPEND PRIMARILY ON SUPPORT FROM THE LAW FOUNDATION OF ONTARIO AND FROM PATRONS, BENEFACTORS AND SUSTAINING MEMBERS. The Osgoode Society For Canadian Legal History OSGOODE HALL 130 QUEEN STREET WEST TORONTO, ONTARIO. M5H 2N6 TELEPHONE - 416-947-3321 FAX NO. - 416-947-3447 E-MAIL - [email protected] WEBSITE - osgoodesociety.ca IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE SOCIETY BE INFORMED PROMPTLY OF ANY CHANGE OF A MEMBER’S ADDRESS. PHOTO CREDIT: THE TORONTO STAR/B. SPREMO, C.M.
  • Canadian Common Law Program Approval Committee

    Canadian Common Law Program Approval Committee

    i CANADIAN COMMON LAW PROGRAM APPROVAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AN APPLICATION BY RYERSON UNIVERSITY FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED LAW SCHOOL PROGRAM December 2017 (i) CANADIAN COMMON LAW PROGRAM APPROVAL COMMITTEE Report on Application by Ryerson University for Approval of Proposed Law School Program Introduction 1. The Canadian Common Law Program Approval Committee (the “Approval Committee” or “the Committee”) is responsible for determining whether existing and proposed common law programs meet the National Requirement set by law societies. The requirement outlines the learning resources required of law schools, as well as the knowledge and competencies that all graduates must possess in order to gain entry into the bar admission programs in the Canadian common law jurisdictions. 2. In October 2016 the Approval Committee received a Letter of Intent from Ryerson University (“Ryerson”) for a new law school program, followed in April 2017 by an official proposal. The Approval Committee has reviewed Ryerson’s application and has determined that, subject to the concerns and comments described below, if the program is implemented as proposed, it will meet the National Requirement. The Committee’s detailed analysis, as well as the iterative process that led to preliminary approval of the program, are set out in this report and corresponding Appendix “A”. 3. The Approval Committee’s decision is only one step in the process. Pursuant to the Ontario Post-secondary Education and Excellence Act, 2000, the proposed program must be approved by the Ontario Minister of Colleges and Universities. In addition to academic and financial considerations, it is the Minister’s responsibility to determine the value or appropriateness of permitting the establishment of a new law school within the province.
  • Canadian Law Library Review Revue Canadienne Des

    Canadian Law Library Review Revue Canadienne Des

    Volume/Tome 38 (2013) No. 3/4 ISSN 1180-176X CANADIAN LAW LIBRARY REVIEW REVUE CANADIENNE DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES DE DROIT EDITOR SUSAN BARKER CONTENTS SOMMAIRE Digital Services and Reference Librarian 2013 2013 Bora Laskin Law Library University of Toronto Canadian Law Library Review Revue canadian des biliothèques de droit T: (416) 978-5799 Volume 38, No. 3 Tome 38 No. 3 E-mail: [email protected] FROM THE EDITOR DE LA RÉDACTRICE 112 ASSOCIATE EDITOR WENDY HEARDER-MOAN PRESIDENT’S LETTER LE MOT DE LA PRÉSIDENTE 114 WHM Library Services E-mail: [email protected] featured ARTICLES ARTICLES DE FOND Edited by Amy Kaufman and Leslie Taylor ADVERTISING MANAGER ANNAMARIE BERGEN Persevere: What Law Librarians Need to do in Educating Students 117 Legal Information Specialist By Sandra Geddes Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP E-mail: [email protected] The Canadian Association of Law Libraries/Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit: 122 A Continuing Story, 1988-2012 EDITOR EMERITUS Part II: Keeping in Touch, and Services to Members NANCY MCCORMACK By Janet M. Moss Librarian and Associate Professor Lederman Law Library Oral History Project Interview Summary 131 Faculty of Law Margaret Banks (1928-2010) Queen’s University Summarized by Rhonda O’Neill E-mail: [email protected] FEATURES EDITORS REVIEWS RECENSIONS AMY KAUFMAN Edited by Nancy McCormack and Kim Clarke Public Services Librarian Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Implementation Guide Lederman Law Library 133 Queen’s University Integrated Accessibility Standards: Information
  • Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage Law and Society Series W

    Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage Law and Society Series W

    Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage Law and Society Series W. Wesley Pue, General Editor The Law and Society Series explores law as a socially embedded phenomenon. It is premised on the understanding that the conventional division of law from society creates false dichotomies in thinking, scholarship, educational practice, and social life. Books in the series treat law and society as mutually constitutive and seek to bridge scholarship emerging from interdisciplinary engagement of law with disciplines such as politics, social theory, history, political economy, and gender studies. Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage is the second of two volumes. The first volume is First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives, edited by Catherine Bell and Val Napoleon. Both are in the Law and Society series. Cover image: On the cover of this book is a photograph of a Tsimshian portrait mask collected by Robert James Dundas at Metlakatla, British Columbia in 1863. The editors and publisher gratefully acknowledge the permission of Sotheby’s and the Carey family to use the photograph of the mask. The photograph has been reproduced in consultation with the Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla. Edited by Catherine Bell and Robert K. Paterson Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage Laws, Policy, and Reform © UBC Press 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright (Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency), www.accesscopyright.ca.
  • The Source, Nature, and Content of the Crown's

    The Source, Nature, and Content of the Crown's

    THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADIEN Vol. 96 2018 No. 2 THE SOURCE, NATURE, AND CONTENT OF THE CROWN’S UNDERLYING TITLE TO ABORIGINAL TITLE LANDS Kent McNeil* 2018 CanLIIDocs 176 The highest courts in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have consistently held that the Crown has the underlying title to Aboriginal title lands. The United States Supreme Court has likewise concluded that either the federal or state governments have the underlying title to Indian lands. However, the source, nature, and content of this title remain obscure. This article will examine the relevant case law and contend that, in Canada, the Crown’s underlying title is a purely proprietary interest that does not amount to a current beneficial interest and does not entail any jurisdictional authority. It is sourced in the doctrine of tenure and is not unlike the title the Crown has under the common law to lands that are held in fee simple. Les plus hautes instances judiciaires de l’Australie, du Canada et de la Nouvelle-Zélande ont uniformément affirmé que la Couronne possède le droit de propriété sous-jacent du titre ancestral. La Cour suprême des États-Unis a elle aussi conclu que le droit de propriété sous-jacent des terres indiennes appartient soit au gouvernement fédéral soit au gouvernement de chaque État. Toutefois, la source, la nature et le contenu de ce droit de propriété demeurent obscurs. Cet article porte sur la jurisprudence pertinente et soutient qu’au Canada, le droit de propriété sous-jacent de la Couronne est un droit de propriété pur et simple qui n’équivaut ni à un intérêt bénéficiaire ni n’implique l’existence d’une compétence.
  • Clarity and Confusion? the New Jurisprudence of Aboriginal Title by Tom Flanagan Fraserinstitute.Org Contents

    Clarity and Confusion? the New Jurisprudence of Aboriginal Title by Tom Flanagan Fraserinstitute.Org Contents

    Fraser Institute Centre for Aboriginal Studies April 2015 Clarity and confusion? The new jurisprudence of aboriginal title by Tom Flanagan fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive Summary / iii Introduction / 1 Historical Background / 2 Property Rights / 6 Supreme Court Decisions / 9 Clarity and Confusion / 12 The Honour of the Crown / 12 Consultation / 21 Conclusion / 25 References / 28 About the Author / 32 Acknowledgments / 32 Publishing Information / 33 Purpose, Funding, and Independence / 34 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 34 About the Fraser Institute / 35 Editorial Advisory Board / 36 fraserinstitute.org / i fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary The Supreme Court of Canada has revolutionized the jurisprudence of aborig- inal rights and title. Various decisions have overturned the doctrine of adverse occupancy, which at one time had been thought to have extinguished aborig- inal title in British Columbia (Delgamukkw); created a governmental duty to consult First Nations regarding use of land to which they have a claim of aboriginal rights or title (Haida Nation); approved a specific claim to aborig- inal title (Tsilhqot’in); and extended the duty of consultation to First Nations whose aboriginal title was previously thought to have been extinguished by treaty (Mikisew). These decisions have created a new range of property rights for First Nations, which they should be able to use to advance their prosper- ity. However, the new jurisprudence has also set up many barriers to volun- tary market transactions by multiplying the number of owners and claimants, and laying down opaque und unpredictable rules for making decisions about lands that are subject to claims of aboriginal title or to treaty rights such as hunting and fishing.