DOCSLIB.ORG

Court File No. 38734 SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Court File No. 38734 SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL Court File No. 38734 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant AND: RICHARD LEE DESAUTEL Respondent OKANAGAN NATION ALLIANCE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE YUKON TERRITORY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, PESKOTOMUHKATI NATION, INDIGENOUS BAR ASSOCIATION IN CANADA, WHITECAP DAKOTA FIRST NATION, GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES (EEYOU ISTCHEE AND CREE NATION GOVERNMENT, MOHAWK COUNCIL OF KAHNAWÀ:KE, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS, MÉTIS NATIONAL COUNCIL AND MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION INC., NUCHATLAHT FIRST NATION, CONGRESS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES and LUMMI NATION Interveners FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, THE CONGRESS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES Pursuant to R.42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP 155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Toronto, ON Ottawa, ON M5V 3H1 K1P 1C3 Andrew Lokan (LSUC#31629Q) Matthew Estabrooks Tel.: 416.646.4324 Tel.: 613.786.0211 Fax: 416.646.4301 Fax: 613.788.3573 email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Glynnis Hawe (LSO #72578Q) Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Proposed Tel.: 416.646.6309 Intervener, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples email: [email protected] Fax: 416.646.4301 Counsel for the Proposed Intervener, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples TO: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Canada Counsel Agent AND Attorney General of British Borden Ladner Gervais LLP TO: Columbia 1300-100 Queen Street Legal Services Branch Ottawa, ON 1405 Douglas Street, 3rd Floor K1P 1J9 Victoria, BC V8W 2G2 Glen R. Thompson Karen Perron Tel.: 250.387.0417 Tel.: (613) 369-4795 Fax: 250.387.0343 Fax: (613) 230-8842 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for Her Majesty the Agent for Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen Queen AND Arvay Finlay LLP Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP TO: 1512 - 808 Nelson Street 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Box 12149, Nelson Square Ottawa, ON Vancouver, BC K1P 1C3 V6Z 2H2 Jeffrey W. Beedell Mark G. Underhill Tel.: 613.786.0171 Tel.: 604.696.9828 Fax: 613.788.3587 Fax: 888.575.3281 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for Richard Lee Desautel Agent for Counsel for Richard Lee Desautel AND Attorney General of Ontario Borden Ladner Gervais LLP TO: 720 Bay Street 1300-100 Queen Street 8th Floor Ottawa, ON Toronto, ON K1P 1J9 M7A 2S9 Manizeh Fancy Karen Perron Kisha Chatterjee Tel.: 613.369.4795 Tel.: 416.578.3637 Fax: 613.230.8842 Fax: 416.326.4181 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of Ontario General of Ontario AND Department of Justice Canada Department of Justice TO: Aboriginal Law Section 50 O'Connor Street 900 - 840 Howe Street Suite 500 Vancouver, BC Ottawa, ON V6Z 2S9 K1A 0H8 Brett Marleau Christopher Rupar Tel.: 604.666.8524 Tel.: 613.670.6290 Fax: 604.666.2710 Fax: 613.954.1920 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of Canada General of Canada AND Ministère de la Justice Noël & Associés TO: 1200, route de l'Église 111, rue Champlain 4e étage Gatineau, QC Québec, QC J8X 3R1 G1V 4M1 Tania Clercq Pierre Landry Tel.: 418.643.1744 Tel.: 819.503.2178 Fax: 418.644.7030 Fax: 819.771.5397 Email: Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of Quebec General of Quebec AND Attorney General of the Yukon Supreme Advocacy LLP TO: Territory 100- 340 Gilmour Street Legal Services Branch, Government Ottawa, ON of Yukon K2P 0R3 2130 - 2nd Avenue Whitehorse, YT Y1A 5H6 Elaine Cairns Marie-France Major Kate Mercier Tel.: 613.695.8855 Ext: 102 Tel.: 867.456.5586 Fax: 613.695.8580 Fax: 867.393-6928 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of the Yukon Territory General of the Yukon Territory AND Attorney General for Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP TO: Saskatchewan 160 Elgin Street Constitutional Law Branch, 8th Floor Suite 2600 820, 1874 Scarth St. Ottawa, ON Regina, SK K1P 1C3 S4P 4B3 Richard James Fyfe D. Lynne Watt Tel.: 306.787.7886 Tel.: 613.786.8695 Fax: 306.787.9111 Fax: 613.788.3509 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of Saskatchewan General of Saskatchewan AND Attorney General of New Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP TO: Brunswick 160 Elgin Street P.O. Box 6000, Stn. A Suite 2600 675 King Street, Suite 2018 Ottawa, ON Fredericton, NB K1P 1C3 E3B 5H1 Rachelle Standing D. Lynne Watt Rose Campbell Tel.: 613.786.8695 Tel.: 506.453.2222 Fax: 613.788.3509 FAX: 506.453.3275 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of New Brunswick General of New Brunswick AND Attorney General of Alberta Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP TO: 10th Floor 160 Elgin Street 10025 - 102A Avenue Suite 2600 Edmonton, AB Ottawa, ON T5J 2Z2 K1P 1C3 Angela Edgington D. Lynne Watt Tel.: 780.427.1482 Tel.: 613.786.8695 Fax: 780.643.0852 Fax: 613.788.3509 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of Alberta General of Alberta AND Mandell Pinder LLP Goldblatt Partners LLP TO: Suite 422 - 1080 Mainland Street 500-30 Metcalfe St. Vancouver, BC Ottawa, ON V6B 2T4 K1P 5L4 Rosanne Kyle Colleen Bauman Crystal Reeves Tel.: 613.482.2463 Tel.: 604.681.4146 Fax: 613.235.3041 Fax: 604.681.0959 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Okanagan Nation Agent for Counsel for the Okanagan Alliance Nation Alliance AND Attorney General of Ontario Borden Ladner Gervais LLP TO: 720 Bay Street World Exchange Plaza 8th Floor 100 Queen Street, suite 1300 Toronto, ON Ottawa, ON M7A 2S9 K1P 1J9 Manizeh Fancy Nadia Effendi Kisha Chatterjee Tel.: 613.787.3562 Tel.: 416.578.3637 Fax: 613.230.8842 Fax: 416.326.4181 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Attorney General Agent for Counsel for the Attorney of Ontario General of Ontario AND Paul Williams Westaway Law Group TO: P.O. Box 91 55 Murray Street Grand River Territory Suite 230 Ohsweken, ON Ottawa, ON N0A 1M0 K1N 5M3 Tel.: 905.506.1755 Geneviève Boulay Email: [email protected] Tel.: 613.702.3042 Fax: 613.722.9097 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Peskotomuhkati Agent for Counsel for the Nation Peskotomuhkati Nation AND First Peoples Law Goldblatt Partners LLP TO: 55 East Cordova Street 500-30 Metcalfe St. Suite 502 Ottawa, ON Vancouver, BC K1P 5L4 V6A 0A5 Colleen Bauman Bruce McIvor Tel.: 613.482.2463 Kate Gunn Fax: 613.235.3041 Tel.: 604.685.4240 Email: [email protected] Fax: 604.283.9349 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Indigenous Bar Agent for Counsel for the Indigenous Association in Canada Bar Association in Canada AND Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP TO: 550 Burrard Street 160 Elgin Street Suite 2300 Suite 2600 Vancouver, BC Ottawa, ON V6C 2B5 K1P 1C3 Maxime Faille Guy Régimbald Keith Brown Tel.: 613.786.0197 Tel.: 604.891.2733 Fax: 613.563.9869 Fax: .604.443.6784 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Whitecap Dakota Agent for Counsel for the Whitecap First Nation Dakota First Nation AND Goldblatt Partners LLP Goldblatt Partners LLP TO: 20 Dundas Street West 30 Metcalfe Street Suite 1100 Suite 500 Toronto, ON Ottawa, ON M5G 2G8 K1P 5L4 Jessica Orkin Darryl Korell Kim Stanton Tel.: 613.482.2467 Tel.: 416.979.4381 Fax: 613.235.3041 Fax: 416.591.7333 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Grand Council of Agent for Counsel for the Grand Council the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and Cree Cree Nation Government Nation Government AND Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke Power Law TO: P.O. Box 720 130 Albert Street Mohawk Territory of Kahnawà:ke, Suite 1103 PQ J0L 1B0 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Francis Walsh Stacey Douglas Maxine Vincelette Tel.: 450.632.7500 Tel.: 613.702.5560 Fax: 450.638.3663 Fax: 613.702.5560 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Mohawk Council Agent for Mohawk Council of of Kahanawà:ke Kahnawà:ke AND Assembly of First Nations Supreme Law Group TO: 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1600 900 - 275 Slater Street Ottawa, ON Ottawa, ON K1P 6L5 K1P 5H9 Stuart Wuttke Moira Dillon Julie McGregor Tel.: 613.691.1224 Tel.: 613.241.6789 Ext: 228 Fax: 613.691.1338 Fax: 613.241.5808 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Assembly of First Agent for the Assembly of First Nations Nations AND Hodgson-Smith Law Juristes Power TO: 311 - 21st Street East 130, rue Albert Saskatoon, SK bureau 1103 S7K 0C1 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Kathy L. Hodgson-Smith Tel.: 306.955.0588 Darius Bossé Fax: 306.955.0590 Tel.: 613.702.5566 Email: [email protected] Fax: 613.702.5566 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Métis National Agent for Counsel for the Métis National Council and Manitoba Metis Council and Manitoba Metis Federation Federation Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights
    M10_TELF6850_01_SE_C10.indd Page 185 22/04/14 7:24 PM user /206/PHC00138/9780132546850_PHC00138/PHC00138_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_CANADIAN_POLITIC ... Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights Key Points n The rules of the game have always been different for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. n Aboriginal peoples constituted self-governing communities in North America before the arrival of Europeans, and they entered into treaty arrangements with the Crown in many parts of Canada, although not everywhere (particularly British Columbia). n Treaty arrangements with Aboriginal peoples were frequently ignored, and at Confederation Aboriginal peoples were subjected to a form of internal colonialism. n In light of important court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act 1982. n But the governments of Canada have been reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with Aboriginal peoples, so it has fallen to the Supreme Court to define the scope and meaning of Aboriginal rights, including self-government. n The constitutional promises of 1982 are still not fulfilled, but it is clear that Aboriginal peoples constitute unique citizens in Canada. n While Aboriginal rights are now constitutionally protected, many Aboriginal communities are still mired in poverty. For many Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of the ­Constitution Act 1982, but Part II of the new constitution is potentially even more signifi- cant. Here we find, in one very brief section, the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights. Section 35 was an afterthought for Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers, and it reads more like a promissory note than a plan for a new order of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act As a Means To
    Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act as a Means to Promote Economic Participation and Treaty Implementation by Myra J Tait A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF LAWS Faculty of Law University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2017 by Myra J Tait ii ABSTRACT Canadian courts, despite recognition in the Canadian Constitution, 1982 that treaties are to govern the Crown-Aboriginal relationship, continue to develop principles of interpretation that narrow Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the taxation provisions of the Indian Act. In Robertson, the Federal Court of Appeal, building on Mitchell v Peguis, articulated a “historic and purposive” analysis, by reliance on a distinctive culture test and an ascribed protection rationale, thereby abrogating the fundamental treaty relationship. As a means to fuller implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaties, taxation provisions must be interpreted in a treaty-compliant manner. The potential for economic participation through a proposed “urban reserve” on the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as part of a Treaty 1 settlement, is discussed as a case study, and compared with similar developments in New Zealand, under a Waitangi Tribunal settlement, as an example of treaty compliance in economic development. Key words: Indian Act s87; Economic development; Historic and purposive; Tax exemption; Numbered Treaties; Treaty interpretation; Treaty implementation; Urban reserves; Native Leasing Services, Kapyong; Waitangi Tribunal. iii Acknowledgements Ehara taku toa, he takitahi, he toa takitini—Success is not the work of one, but of many.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Nanfan Treaty” – Legal Considerations
    Part 3 The “Nanfan Treaty” – Legal Considerations Is the “Nanfan Treaty” legally valid? Does the 1701 “Conveyance of lands by the Native American Chiefs of the Five Nations ” constitute a valid treaty between the Crown and the Indians? Do the Haudenosaunee have a valid case to claim hunting rights in the Dundas Valley Conservation Area? Does the Hamilton Conservation Authority have the right to enter into relevant Protocol Agreements with the Haudenosaunee, based on alleged “treaty rights”? Were the Ontario learned justices in R. v. Ireland and Jamieson [1990] and R. v. Barberstock [2003] wrong? Is the Ontario government wrong? On June 6, 2011, the Hamilton Spectator published an article, “Treaty covers HCA lands: Bentley”, in which it reported: “Ontario's attorney general and minister of aboriginal affairs says Six Nations' hunting and fishing treaty rights apply in lands owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA).” “In a letter received by the authority last month, Chris Bentley said the 1701 Treaty of Albany (or Nanfan Treaty) provides for the continuation of Six Nations “hunting and fishing activities on the lands subject to the treaty. The lands owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority are within this treaty territory. /…/ "HCA general manager Steve Miazga said the letter, which was accepted at the board of directors' annual general meeting Thursday, “builds on” the recommendations they received from police and the Ministry of Natural Resources' enforcement branch to “build the relationship with the Haudenosaunee regarding environment matters. /…/ “Bentley wrote that he “fully support(s)” an agreement that was reached to respect the treaty rights of Six Nations people to hunt deer in the area for food.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 71 (2015) Article 5 Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Borrows, John. "Aboriginal Title and Private Property." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 71. (2015). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol71/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Aboriginal Title and Private Property John Borrows* Q: What did Indigenous Peoples call this land before Europeans arrived? A: “OURS.”1 I. INTRODUCTION In the ground-breaking case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia2 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.3 It held that the Tsilhqot’in Nation possess constitutionally protected rights to certain lands in central British Columbia.4 In drawing this conclusion the Tsilhqot’in secured a declaration of “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land”.5 These are wide-ranging rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Has No History!’
    ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY By Victoria Jane Freeman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto ©Copyright by Victoria Jane Freeman 2010 ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Victoria Jane Freeman Graduate Department of History University of Toronto The Indigenous past is largely absent from settler representations of the history of the city of Toronto, Canada. Nineteenth and twentieth century historical chroniclers often downplayed the historic presence of the Mississaugas and their Indigenous predecessors by drawing on doctrines of terra nullius , ignoring the significance of the Toronto Purchase, and changing the city’s foundational story from the establishment of York in 1793 to the incorporation of the City of Toronto in 1834. These chroniclers usually assumed that “real Indians” and urban life were inimical. Often their representations implied that local Indigenous peoples had no significant history and thus the region had little or no history before the arrival of Europeans. Alternatively, narratives of ethical settler indigenization positioned the Indigenous past as the uncivilized starting point in a monological European theory of historical development. i i iii In many civic discourses, the city stood in for the nation as a symbol of its future, and national history stood in for the region’s local history. The national replaced ‘the Indigenous’ in an ideological process that peaked between the 1880s and the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Duty': the City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2020 Rethinking 'Duty': The City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships Doug Anderson Alexandra Flynn Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Citation Details Doug Anderson & Alexandra Flynn, "Rethinking ‘Duty’: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships" (2020) 58:1 Alta L Rev 107. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Citation: Doug Anderson & Alexandra Flynn, “Rethinking ‘Duty’: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships” (2020) 58:1 Alberta Law Review 107 RETHINKING ‘DUTY’: THE CITY OF TORONTO, A STRETCH OF THE HUMBER RIVER, AND INDIGENOUS-MUNICIPAL RELATIONSHIPS Doug Anderson1 and Alexandra Flynn2 The nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous peoples and cities remains largely unexplored in the Canadian context.3 This oversight is especially problematic in light of the significant percentage of Indigenous people who live in urban areas, and the many concerns that Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples share. These shared concerns include the environment, land use, housing, social services, and much more, and modern municipalities do make attempts to address Indigenous-specific needs in these areas; but Indigenous-municipal relationships have implications that far exceed the technocratic and siloed ways in which Canadian systems generally approach these broad areas of concern - implications not only with regard for Indigenous people, but for all people.
    [Show full text]
  • R. V. Van Der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R
    R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 Dorothy Marie Van der Peet Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) and The Attorney General of Quebec, the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the First Nations Summit, Delgamuukw et al., Howard Pamajewon, Roger Jones, Arnold Gardner, Jack Pitchenese and Allan Gardner Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Van der Peet File No.: 23803. 1995: November 27, 28, 29; 1996: August 21. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Constitutional law -- Aboriginal rights -- Right to sell fish on non-commercial basis -- Fish caught under native food fish licence -- Regulations - 2 - prohibiting sale or barter of fish caught under that licence -- Fish sold to non-aboriginal and charges laid -- Definition of "existing aboriginal rights" as used in s. 35 of Constitution Act, 1982 -- Whether an aboriginal right being exercised in the circumstances -- Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1) -- Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, s. 61(1) -- British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, SOR/84-248, s. 27(5). The appellant, a native, was charged with selling 10 salmon caught under the 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC) authority of an Indian food fish licence, contrary to s. 27(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations, which prohibited the sale or barter of fish caught under such a licence. The restrictions imposed by s.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Court Grants Injunction to Prevent Interference with Pipeline Maintenance Work: Enbridge Pipelines INC
    April 12, 2017 ARTICLE Ontario Court Grants Injunction To Prevent Interference With Pipeline Maintenance Work: Enbridge Pipelines INC. V. Williams And Hill, 2017 ONSC 1642, Ontario Superior Court Of Justice (Broad J.), 15 March 2017 The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed an injunction application by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. to prohibit the Aboriginal defendants from interfering with its maintenance work on two pipelines in the Hamilton, Ontario area. The Court rejected the defendants' argument that it must consider whether the duty to consult and accommodate had been fully discharged before granting an injunction to a private party. Enbridge owns and operates an interprovincial pipeline system extending across Canada and the USA. Line 10 is a 143-km long stretch of pipeline running between North Westover, Ontario to Buffalo, New York. Line 11 runs between Westover, Ontario and Nanticoke, Ontario. The easements for these pipelines had been granted to Enbridge's predecessor. Enbridge has a comprehensive pipeline preventative maintenance program for its pipeline network. Under this program, it is sometimes necessary for an excavation around the pipeline segment, known as a "Maintenance Dig". Such work usually lasts 15 days. The Court referred to evidence that Enbridge had written to the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the New Credit, as well as the Haudenosaunee Development Institute ("HDI"), well in advance of the maintenance. No objections were raised by the HDI or the two First Nations. The defendants Williams and Hill identify themselves as representatives and "enforcers" of HDI. Enbridge asserted that the defendants Williams and Hill have regularly interfered with its work crews at a Maintenance Dig since January 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Summerhaven Notice of Final Public Meeting, Appendix F
    ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION REPORT FOR: PROPOSED SUMMERHAVEN WIND ENERGY CENTRE NextEra Energy Canada, ULC Report Updated as of: January 22, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................................! 3 1. NextEra Energy Canada"s Approach to Aboriginal Consultation and Engagement....! 7 1.1 Identification of Aboriginal Communities and Potential Interests!.................................... 7 1.2 Project Consultation as a Proponent!............................................................................ 13 1.3 Broader Engagement!....................................................................................................14 1.4 Aboriginal Relations Canadian Project Framework!.......................................................14 2. Information Provided to Communities...........................................................................! 15 2.1 Aboriginal Communities with Potential Interests in the Project!..................................... 15 2.2 Distribution of Required Information.............................................................................! 16 2.3 Additional Information Made Available..........................................................................! 18 3. Information Received From Aboriginal Communities..................................................! 19 3.1 Information Received About Aboriginal or Treaty Rights Pursuant to s. 17 of O/Reg 359/09...........................................................................................................................!
    [Show full text]
  • From Calder to Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders? Peter W
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 16 (2002) Article 8 From Calder To Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders? Peter W. Hutchins Anjali Choksi Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hutchins, Peter W. and Choksi, Anjali. "From Calder To Mitchell: Should the Courts Patrol Cultural Borders?." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 16. (2002). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol16/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. FROM CALDER TO MITCHELL: SHOULD THE COURTS PATROL CULTURAL BORDERS? Peter W. Hutchins* Anjali Choksi** In what sense is an era ever truly finished — who sets the boundaries and how are they patrolled. Do we not have overwhelming evidence, in our time and in every period we study of an odd interlayering of cultural perspectives and a mixing of peoples, so that nothing is ever truly complete or unitary.1 The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.2 ... Constitutional protection of indigenous difference ought to extend beyond pro- tection of certain customs, practices, and traditions integral to Aboriginal cultures to include protection of interests associated with territory, sovereignty, and the treaty process.3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Haudensaunee Deer Hunting in Dundas Valley – a “Treaty Right” Or a Fraud?
    Part 1 Haudensaunee deer hunting in Dundas Valley – a “treaty right” or a fraud? “Nanfan Treaty” is a hoax. It is not a “treaty.” It is a fraudalent interpretation of historical facts and a legally invalid claim of “treaty rights.” Nanfan Treaty does not exist. Historically, the deed of land to the English King, made by the Five Nations’ sachems in Albany on 19 July 1701, was never intended, recognized or confirmed by the Crown as a valid treaty. 1 Nanfan “Treaty” was a one-sided narrative, a one-sided deed of land with a wishlist attached to it – (an expectation to hunt in the area in question), made unilaterally by the native sachems who signed the document. This point is clearly demonstrated by the actual text of this document. In May 1784 – (83 years after the “Nanfan Treaty”) – a tract of land along the Grand River valley, being part of the lands “deeded” to the Crown in the “Nanfan Treaty”, was purchased from the Mississaugas, on behalf of the Crown, by the Governor of the Province of Quebec Frederick Haldimand. In October 1784, Haldimand granted this land to the Iroquois who had served on the British side during the American Revolution. If the Crown believed that the land was earlier “deeded”, it would not have to purchase it from the Mississaugas. During the Conference in Albany (12-19 July, 1701), that produced the so called “ Nanfan Treaty “, several speeches were made by the native leaders and by Governor Nanfan. Nanfan mainly talked about “protection” from the French and from the tribes allied with the French.
    [Show full text]
  • London (Ontario) Area Treaties: an Introductory Guide Stephen D'arcy
    Western University From the SelectedWorks of Stephen D'Arcy Fall September 7, 2018 London (Ontario) Area Treaties: An Introductory Guide Stephen D'Arcy This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC_BY-NC-SA International License. Available at: https://works.bepress.com/sdarcy/19/ LONDON-AREA TREATIES An Introductory Guide Prepared by S. D’Arcy (Department of Philosophy, Huron University College) This introductory guide is intended for use by students in Philosophy 3820f (2018-19), at Huron University College. It is not for wider distribution. Version 1.0 (7 September 2018) [email protected] LONDON-AREA TREATIES: An Introductory Guide Part One: Treating-Making – Background and Context…………………………………………………………………………p. 2 . The Attawandaron Era . Early Impacts of Colonialism: Disease, Warfare, and the Dispersal of the Attawandaron . The Deshkan Ziibiing Anishinaabeg, the Minisink Lunaape, and the Onyota’a:ka . Distinguishing Indigenous Rights and Treaty Rights . The Wider Treaty Context . The London-Area Treaties . A Clash of Two Understandings: Property Law versus Regional Coexistence . Some Notable Treaty Violations: o Big Bear Creek o Muncey Claim o Clench Defalcation o Line 9 Reversal . The Deshkan Ziibiing Consultation Protocol . Conclusion Part Two: Maps of Treaty Boundaries in London, Southern and Southwestern Ontario…………………….p. 26 . Treaty Map, City of London, ON . Treaty Map, London Area . Treaty Map, Hamilton-Toronto Area . Treaty Map, Southern Ontario Part Three: The Texts of London-Area ‘Pre-Confederation’ Treaties, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 25, 29………………………p. 29 . Treaty No. 2: McKee Purchase Treaty, 1790 o Appendix: The Memorial of 1794 (Anishinaabe Chiefs) . Treaty No. 3: Between the Lakes Treaty, 1792 . Treaty No.
    [Show full text]