Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case

“There were two societies who treated together. One was small, but in its smallness had its rights. The other was great, but in its greatness had no greater rights than the rights of the small.”

Louis Riel The History of the MMF The MMF lost again at the Manitoba Court of Appeal in 2010. The Court of Case: “The Third Time is Appeal, recognizing that this was an the Charm” historic case, sat five judges instead Overview of Document of their usual three to hear the appeal. The MMF case was launched in This document was prepared by external legal counsel It rejected the trial judge’s view that 1981. The Manitoba Métis sought a aboriginal title was essential to the at the request of the Manitoba Metis Federation (MMF). declaration that the lands they were fiduciary duty claim, but then found promised in the Manitoba Act, 1870 It provides an overview and summary of the Supreme Court it unnecessary to make any decision were not provided in accordance with with respect to the fiduciary duty claim. of Canada’s landmark decision in Manitoba Metis Federation the Crown’s fiduciary and honour of the The Court of Appeal said the trial v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] S.C.J. No. 14 (the Crown obligations. They also sought judge’s findings of fact did not support a declaration that certain legislation any breach of the duty. It rejected any “MMF case”). The document is not legal advice and should passed by the Manitoba Government claim with respect to the honour of the not be relied upon as such. Nor do the legal interpretations that affected the implementation of Crown and held that the entire claim the Manitoba Act was not within the and conclusions in the document necessarily reflect the was moot because there was no live jurisdiction of the province. controversy. It upheld the trial judge’s positions of the MMF. It is recommended that the reader take In 2007, after 26 years of litigation and finding that the MMF had no standing the opportunity to review the full written decision which can having to go all the way to the Supreme to bring the case. be obtained on the http://scc.lexum.org website. Court of Canada to address procedural Victory finally arrived at the Supreme issues in order to even proceed with the Court of Canada. The Supreme Court claim, the MMF lost at trial. The Justice handed down its reasons for judgment of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench on March 8, 2013. They granted the dismissed the action. He found that MMF’s appeal and held that the federal there was lengthy delay in implementing Crown failed to implement the land the land provisions of the Manitoba Act grant provision set out in s. 31 of the and that the delay was due to government Manitoba Act, 1870 in accordance with error and inaction. However, he found the honour of the Crown. The Supreme that there was no fiduciary duty or a duty Court also granted the MMF standing based on the honour of the Crown. The and gave them costs throughout. trial judge took the view that a fiduciary duty required proof that the Métis held the land collectively prior to 1870. He also held that the claim was filed too late and was barred by limitation periods and the delay. Finally, he denied the MMF standing. In effect, he held that the while the individual plaintiffs were capable of bringing the claim, the MMF was not.

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 2 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case The Story of the deeply concerned that Canadian control Manitoba Act was made part of the The Standing of would threaten their traditional way Constitution of Canada in 1871. Manitoba Métis and of life. They were particularly worried the MMF in the Case: the Manitoba Act: about the arrival of a wave of English- The Canadian government began the “The Body Representing Canada’s Negotiating speaking Protestant settlers. Canada process of implementing s. 31 in early the Collective Métis sent out survey parties in 1869 and the 1871. The first step was to set aside the Partners in Confederation Métis, led by Louis Riel, turned them 1.4 million acres; the second step was Interest” to divide the land among the children. In order to understand this case, we back. They also turned back Canada’s In court cases, standing refers to an proposed Lieutenant Governor. Then, in There were numerous problems, errors have to go back to the 1860s. The Métis and delays. Changes of government, individual or a group having the capacity had created a vibrant community at November 1869, the Métis seized Upper and authority to bring a legal claim. Fort Garry and established a provisional inaccurate census information, Red River in the early 1800s. By 1869 botched allotment processes and The plaintiffs in the case are the MMF there were 12,000 inhabitants, of which government. The Métis government and several named individuals. The drafted a list of demands that Canada land speculation combined to entirely 10,000 were Métis and 7,000 of those defeat the purpose of s. 31. In the individuals were or are members of the Métis were children. Canada became had to satisfy before the Red River MMF Board of Directors. The Crown took Métis would accept Canadian control. result, virtually no children actually a new country in 1867 and wanted to received land. no issue with the individual plaintiffs, expand westward. Plans were made to Riel sent three negotiators to Ottawa. but fought vigorously to keep the MMF In March 1870, negotiations began negotiate Rupert’s Land into Canada, During the same time, the position of out of the claim. The Crown argued that between the Red River representatives, and as a first step ownership of the the Métis in Red River deteriorated. The the MMF had no interest in the litigation Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald Hudson’s Bay Company’s interest in new settlers from Ontario were hostile, because the lands were not set aside for and George-Etienne Cartier (Minister of Rupert’s Land was transferred to there was a “reign of terror” against the the MMF or any representative body; Militia and Defence). Canada in 1868. As a result, Canada Métis, the lands were being taken up rather, the matter was strictly about considered itself to be the owner of the When Canada determined that it would by the Ontario settlers, and no lands individual entitlements. The Crown Red River Settlement. retain ownership of the public lands in were forthcoming for the Métis. As a also said that the MMF’s membership result, many Métis sold their promised was broader than the descendants of s. “The Canadian government, Manitoba, the Red River negotiators countered by demanding land. This interests in the land and moved outside 31 beneficiaries, making the MMF an led by Prime Minister John A. of the province they helped to create. inappropriate plaintiff. Macdonald, embarked on a policy took two forms: a provision to protect existing land holdings of the 3,000 aimed at bringing the western “This appeal is about obligations The Supreme Court rejected this Métis adult land holders (s. 32); and territories within the boundaries to the Métis people enshrined argument, holding that the presence a provision to give the 7,000 Métis of Canada, and opening them up in the Manitoba Act … These of other claimants does not preclude children a “head start” in the province to settlement. This meant dealing promises were directed at standing. The question was whether with a land grant of 1.4 million acres (s. with the indigenous peoples enabling the Métis people this litigation was a reasonable and 31). On the basis of these promises, who were living in the western and their descendants to effective means to bring a challenge the Métis agreed to lay down their arms territories. On the prairies, these obtain a lasting place in the to court. The Court held that the as Canada’s negotiation partner to bring consisted mainly of two groups new province. Sadly, the requirements for public interest Manitoba into Confederation. This -- the First Nations, and the expectations of the Métis were standing should be flexible and is one of the foundational deals that descendants of unions between not fulfilled, and they scattered generous and considered in light of led to Canada’s expansion westward. white traders and explorers and in the face of the settlement that the underlying purposes of setting These types of deals are often called Aboriginal women, now known as marked the ensuing decades.” limits on who has standing in court. the “compacts of Confederation.” Métis.” – MMF Case, paras. 1-2 – MMF Case, para. 5 These compacts go to the heart and The Métis in Red River, however, did soul of Canada. Manitoba became not agree with the transfer and were part of Canada on July 15, 1870. The

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 3 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 4 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case “This collective claim merits A fiduciary is required to act in River Métis held their lands individually The MMF Claim: allowing the body representing the best interests of the person (i.e., in a river lot system), they were the collective Métis interest to on whose behalf he is acting, to not a collectively-held “Aboriginal The Federal Government come before the court. We would avoid all conflicts of interest and to interest in the land”. The Métis held Breached the Honour grant the MMF standing.” – MMF strictly account for all property held individual interests in land that arose of the Crown in Case, para. 44 or administered on behalf of that from their personal histories, not from person. The Supreme Court held that their shared Métis identity. The facts Implementing Section 31 The Court held that this case was the relationship between the Métis of how the Métis in the Red River held of the Manitoba Act not a series of claims for individual and the Crown was and is fiduciary in their land interests were incompatible relief; rather, it was a collective claim nature; however, that does not mean with a claimed collective aboriginal The honour of the Crown is a principle for declarations for the purposes of all dealings between the Crown and interest in land. that requires servants of the Crown to act advancing reconciliation between Métis give rise to fiduciary duties. with honour on behalf of the sovereign. the descendants of Red River Métis Fiduciary duties will generally arise The Supreme Court also dismissed the The honour of the Crown arises from and Canada. While the Manitoba Act only where the fiduciary has control idea that the language of s. 31 meant the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty over provided for individual entitlements, over specific aboriginal interests or that the Métis had a collective interest aboriginal people and its actual control of that did not negate the fact that the from an explicit undertaking. in the lands. While s. 31 stated that land and resources that were formerly in appellants advanced a collective claim the land grants were “towards the the control of that people. The honour of of the Manitoba Métis. This claim There was no dispute that the Crown extinguishment of the Indian Title to the Crown is a very old idea and stretches was based on a promise made in undertook discretionary control over the lands in the Province” and that the back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. return for their agreement to recognize the administration of land grants land grant was for “the benefit of the It is not a paternalistic concept; instead, Canada’s sovereignty. The collective under ss. 31 and 32; the question was families of the half-breed residents,” it reflects the reality that the Crown often claim merited the body representing whether there was a specific collective the lack of any underlying collective needed to persuade aboriginal peoples, the collective Métis interest coming aboriginal interest in the lands involved aboriginal interest in land being proven at times when they still had considerable before the court. The Supreme Court, in this control. The trial judge said resulted in a specific fiduciary duty military capacity and constituted a therefore, granted the MMF standing. no and the Court of Appeal declined not being established. The Supreme majority of the population in various to decide the point. The Supreme Court held a fiduciary duty to an regions of the province, that their rights The MMF Claim: Court said that in order to give rise to aboriginal group could not simply be and interests were better protected by a fiduciary duty the collectively-held established by language in legislation reliance on the Crown than fighting A Crown-Métis Fiduciary interest must be distinctly aboriginal: or treaty. It must be based on historic against it. The purpose of the doctrine Relationship Exists, But the fact that the Métis are aboriginal use and occupation as an aboriginal is the reconciliation of pre-existing No Fiduciary Duty and had an interest in the lands did collective, and neither the evidence aboriginal societies with the assertion of not make their interest a collectively- nor the words of s. 31 established Crown sovereignty. The MMF claimed that Canada had a held “Aboriginal interest in land.” An that historic use and occupation. fiduciary duty to implement ss. 31 and aboriginal interest in land requires a While s. 31 shows an intention to 32 of the Manitoba Act as trustee for the “communal aboriginal interest in the benefit the Métis children, it does not Métis, arguing that this duty arose out land that is integral to the nature of the demonstrate an undertaking to act in of the Métis aboriginal interests in the Métis distinctive community and their their best interests above all others. lands in question or directly from the relationship to the land.” promises made in ss. 31 and 32. The For these reasons, the Supreme Court Supreme Court did not agree with these The key question was whether the held that the federal government legal arguments. Métis—as a collective—held a specific was not under a fiduciary duty in its aboriginal collective interest in the ss. administration of the children’s lands 31 and 32 lands. Since the trial judge’s (s. 31) or the s. 32 lands. findings of fact showed that the Red

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 5 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 6 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case “The ultimate purpose of the purposes or treaty or statutory grants to The Supreme Court drew analogies To fulfill its duty, Crown servants needed honour of the Crown is the aboriginal peoples. between treaty and constitutional to perform the obligation in a way reconciliation of pre-existing obligations, saying that an intention that pursues the purpose behind the Aboriginal societies with the In the MMF case, the Supreme Court to create obligations and a certain promise. The aboriginal group must assertion of Crown sovereignty.” – recognized another type of situation measure of solemnity should attach not be left with an “empty shell” of a MMF Case, para 66 where the honour of the Crown is to both. Both types of promises are promise. The Court called the duty set implicated; namely, in relation to the made for the overarching purpose of out in s. 31 a “narrow and circumscribed The honour of the Crown imposes a implementation of explicit obligation reconciling aboriginal interests with duty” based on “extraordinary facts”. heavy obligation on the Crown, but it solely to an aboriginal group that is Crown sovereignty. The obligation, The Court noted that breach of the is not at play in every Crown-Aboriginal enshrined in the Constitution. The however, must be explicitly owed Crown’s duty would not be found based interaction. The Supreme Court noted Court recognized that s. 31 invoked this to an aboriginal group; a strong on a single mistake or negligent act in that in previous cases it has recognized type of obligation. It found that s. 32 aboriginal interest in the obligation implementation. However, “a persistent that the honour of the Crown gives rise did not engage this obligation because is not enough. Only a constitutional pattern of errors and indifference that to specific Crown duties, including, (1) it was not exclusively made to the Métis obligation explicitly directed at an substantially frustrates the purposes a fiduciary duty when discretionary as an aboriginal group, since other non- aboriginal group invokes that group’s of a solemn promise may amount to control over a specific Aboriginal interest aboriginal settlers in the Red River were special relationship with the Crown. a betrayal of the Crown’s duty to act is assumed by the Crown, (2) a duty to eligible for s. 32 lands. honourably in fulfilling its promise.” The consult and accommodate when the The Court held that the honour of the honour of the Crown does not guarantee Crown contemplates an action that “The Constitution is not a mere Crown requires the Crown to act in a that the purposes of the promise will be will affect a claimed but yet unproven statute; … It is at the root of the way that accomplishes the intended achieved because events may prevent aboriginal interest, (3) an obligation to honour of the Crown, and an purposes of treaty and statutory grants fulfillment despite the Crown’s diligent act honorably in treaty negotiation and explicit obligation to an Aboriginal to aboriginal peoples. When the issue efforts. But the question before courts implementation, (4) an obligation to act group placed therein engages the is the implementation of a constitutional will be this: “Viewing the Crown’s in a way that accomplishes the intended honour of the Crown at its core.” obligation to an aboriginal people, conduct as a whole in the context of the – MMF Case, para. 70 the honour of the Crown requires that case, did the Crown act with diligence to the Crown take a broad, purposive pursue the fulfillment of the purposes of approach to the interpretation of the the obligation?” promise and act diligently to fulfill it. An honourable interpretation cannot be a “Not every mistake or negligent act legalistic one that severs the words from in implementing a constitutional their purpose. The law assumes that obligation to an Aboriginal the Crown intends to fulfill its solemn people brings dishonour to the promises, including constitutional Crown. … However, a persistent obligations, and requires the Crown pattern of errors and indifference to endeavor to ensure its obligations that substantially frustrates the are fulfilled. The duty applies whether purposes of a solemn promise the obligation arises in a treaty or in may amount to a betrayal of the the Constitution, the latter being the Crown’s duty to act honourably situation with the MMF. Because the in fulfilling its promise.” – MMF Manitoba Act became part of Canada’s Case, para. 82 Constitution in 1871, section 31 engaged this constitutional duty.

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 7 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 8 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case The Supreme Court held that the honour The broad purpose of s. 31 was to Delay “The prompt and equitable of the Crown was at the heart of this reconcile the Manitoba Métis community implementation of s. 31 was litigation. The MMF argued at all levels of with the sovereignty of the Crown and to It took over 10 years to make the land fundamental to the project court that the conduct of the government permit the creation of the province of allotments to the Métis children and the of reconciliation … s. 31 was in implementing s. 31 breached the duty Manitoba. This reconciliation was to be scrip distributions did not occur until designed to give the Métis a that arose from the honour of the Crown. accomplished by a concrete measure— 1885 (15 years later). The Supreme head start in the race for land the prompt and equitable transfer of 1.4 Court held that this delay substantially and a place in the new province. The Application of the million acres of public lands to the Métis defeated the purpose of s. 31: because This required that the grants be the purpose was to give the children a Honour of the Crown children. It was designed to give the made while a head start was still Métis children a “head start” in the race “head start” over anticipated immigrants, possible.” – MMF Case, para. 99 to the Constitutional for land and “a lasting place in the new time was plainly of the essence. Minister Promise made to the province” that their parents and grand Cartier promised the Métis that the The trial judge found that there was no parents helped to create. This required land would be distributed “as soon as bad faith or misconduct on the part of Manitoba Métis the land grants be made while a “head practicable” and in “the most effectual the Crown employees, but the Supreme Section 31 gave land rights to the Métis start” was still possible. Everyone knew and equitable manner.” The intent of Court said diligence requires more than children of the Red River Settlement. that a wave of settlement was coming the promise was not met. simply the absence of bad faith. The and Minister Cartier assured the Métis record showed that there was consistent There is no doubt that this was a promise In fact, the delays were huge and that the grants would “be of a nature inattention and a consequent lack of to the Métis people collectively in recognized by everyone, including, to meet the wishes of the half-breed diligence in implementing s. 31. The recognition of their distinct community. government officials at the time. residents” and that the division of land Court held that the delay in completing This constitutional promise engaged the Meanwhile, the Manitoba legislature would be done “in the most effectual the s. 31 distribution was inconsistent honour of the Crown. The court looked passed a series of acts intended to and equitable manner.” The Supreme with the behavior demanded by the at what it called s. 31’s “treaty-like” frustrate the purpose of s. 31, and Court recognized that nothing even honour of the Crown. history and character. Like a treaty, s. 31 the settlers poured into the province remotely like an effectual and equitable was adopted with the intention to create and were allowed to take up the lands process happened. Sales to Speculators Crown obligations “of the highest order”. intended for the Métis children. Petitions Section 31 was conceived during the The MMF claimed that Canada failed were sent to Ottawa complaining about The MMF argued that Canada negotiations to create the new province of the delay and its damaging effects. The breached its duty by failing to protect Manitoba and with a view to reconciling to fulfill its duties to the Métis people in relation to the children’s grants in Deputy Minister of the Interior called it a the Métis from land speculators and the aboriginal interests of the Red “disgraceful delay”. that Canada should not have permitted River Métis (that were not grounded in four ways: (1) by the inexcusable delay in distributing the lands; (2) by using sales before the land was actually collectively-held aboriginal lands, but in The Supreme Court held the delay was random selection rather than ensuring granted to the children or before they their individuals land holdings and their inconsistent with the duty imposed by family members got adjoining parcels; reached their age of majority. The pre-existence as a distinct community) the honour of the Crown to act diligently (3) failing to protect the Métis from Supreme Court held that the 10-year with the Crown’s claim to sovereignty. to fulfill the purpose of s. 31. The facts in land speculators; and (4) giving some delay in implementation increased this case showed a “persistent pattern of Métis children scrip instead of a direct sales to speculators. As the years went “Section 31, though, is not a inattention [that] frustrates the purpose land grant. on and the land was not forthcoming, treaty. The trial judge correctly of the constitutional obligation.” Of a cash offer from a speculator would described s. 31 as a constitutional particular note, the Court held that the fact appear attractive. Also, protecting provision crafted for the purpose of a new government coming to power timber or other resources on lands they of resolving Aboriginal concerns was no excuse for delays that defeated might someday receive became more and permitting the creation of the the promise: “[t]he Crown’s obligations and more difficult and those lands province of Manitoba.” – MMF cannot be suspended simply because became less valuable. The Manitoba Case, para. 93. there is a change in government.” legislature passed acts that aided this

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 9 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 10 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case was $2 or $2.50 per acre. Therefore, The Court’s Conclusion on the Statutes of Limitations the children who received scrip got a Honour of the Crown grant equivalent to 96-120 acres, which The Supreme Court rejected Crown was significantly less than the 240 acres The Supreme Court concluded that arguments that the Métis claim for provided to the children who got land the s. 31 obligation made to the Métis declaratory relief was barred by grants. The delay thus resulted in the was part of Canada’s Constitution and Manitoba’s limitations legislation. While 993 children receiving less land than so engaged the honour of the Crown, limitations legislation can bar personal the others. The Court said this was a requiring the federal government to remedies flowing from the striking down “departure from the s. 31 promise that interpret s. 31 purposively and diligently of unconstitutional legislation, the Court the land would be divided in a roughly pursue fulfillment of the purposes of its held that such legislation cannot prevent equal fashion,” and concluded that obligation. According to the Supreme the courts from issuing declarations on the delay in issuing scrip was a further Court, “[t]his was not done. The Métis the constitutionality of legislation or the demonstration of the “persistent pattern were promised implementation of the Crown’s conduct. of inattention inconsistent with the s. 31 land grants in ‘the most effectual The Supreme Court held that while land speculation. The facts showed honour of the Crown.” and equitable manner’. Instead, the Manitoba’s limitations legislation would that those who sold after receiving the implementation was ineffectual and apply to aboriginal claims for breach land received about twice that received Random Allotment inequitable.” The Court concluded of fiduciary duty with respect to the by those who sold before allotment. that “[a] government sincerely intent administration of aboriginal property, The Supreme Court held that while The MMF claimed that the s. 31 lands on fulfilling the duty that its honour what was at issue in this case was a the grants could be sold, the delay should have been allotted so that the demanded could and should have declaration that the Crown did not encouraged speculation. children’s lots were contiguous to or done better.” in the vicinity of their parents’ lots. At act honourably in implementing the Scrip a minimum, the sibling’s lands should The MMF Claim: constitutional obligation in s. 31 of have been clustered together because the Manitoba Act. The Court held that Because the government miscalculated this was necessary to facilitate actual Other Legal and “[l]imitations acts cannot bar claims of the number of eligible children, 993 settlement rather than sales. This Constitutional Issues this nature.” were left out of the allotment and in the was necessary to establish a Métis end they got scrip redeemable for land homeland. The trial judge found that The Constitutionality of Manitoba’s Importantly, the Court recognized that instead of a land grant. Scrip could be the grant was intended to benefit the Implementation Statutes “[t]he ongoing rift in the national fabric sold for cash, but it was worth about individual children, not to establish a that s. 31 was adopted to cure remains half its face value. The MMF argued Métis land base. The Supreme Court The MMF sought a declaration that five unremedied. The unfinished business that the delivery of scrip breached s. accepted this and held that the random statutes enacted by Manitoba between of reconciliation of the Métis people 31. The Supreme Court did not agree. selection within each parish was an 1877 and 1885, regulating the means with Canadian sovereignty is a matter of It said that as long as the 1.4 million acceptable way to distribute the land by which sales of s. 31 lands could national and constitutional import.” As acres was set aside and distributed with consistent with the purpose of s. 31. take place, were unconstitutional. The such, the courts “cannot be barred by reasonable equity, the scheme of the That said, the Court noted that the delay Supreme Court rejected this argument, mere statutes from issuing a declaration Manitoba Act was not offended. The in distribution and consequential sales holding that the statutes were long since on a fundamental constitutional MMF also argued that the value of scrip prior to patent may have made it more repealed and could have no future matter.” The Court concluded that issued was deficient. The children got difficult for the Métis to trade land and impact. In short, the Court said they had “[t]he principle of reconciliation demands $240 of scrip, based on an estimate that achieve contiguous parcels. no relevance to determining the MMF’s that such declarations not be barred.” the land cost $1.00 per acre. While this modern-day claim. may have been the price in 1879, by the time scrip was issued in 1885 land

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 11 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 12 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case Laches as guardian of the Constitution, could “What is at issue is a It is an inescapable conclusion that apply an equitable doctrine to defeat a constitutional grievance going the legal framework set out by the Laches is an equitable legal doctrine claim for a declaration that a provision of back almost a century and Supreme Court in relation to s. 35 that requires a claimant to pursue his the Constitution has not been fulfilled as a half. So long as the issue and reconciliation, combined with the claim without delay. Unlike statutes of required by the honour of the Crown. … remains outstanding, the goal of Supreme Court’s recognition of the limitations, laches involves no fixed The Constitution is the supreme law of reconciliation and constitutional outstanding constitutional claim of the time period; rather, the circumstances our country, and it demands that courts harmony, recognized in s. 35 of Manitoba Métis, demands negotiations of each specific case determines the be empowered to protect its substance the Charter and underlying s. between the MMF and the federal appropriateness of any delay. Generally, and uphold its promises.” 31 of the Manitoba Act, remains government in order to address this there are two considerations involved in unachieved. The ongoing rift “unfinished business” of confederation determining when a delay amounts to Conclusion: Dealing with in the national fabric that s. 31 and to advance reconciliation. Only laches: (1) the claimant’s acquiescence the “Unfinished Business” was adopted to cure remains time will tell “when” and “how” these or acceptance of the delay; and (2) unremedied. The unfinished required negotiations will ultimately whether the defendant (i.e., the Crown of Confederation business of reconciliation of the take place. However, regardless of any in this case) changed its position in Métis people with Canadian future delays, excuses or avoidance Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed reliance on the claimant’s (i.e., the sovereignty is a matter of national tactics that may be used by the federal the MMF’s appeal in part and issued Manitoba Métis in this case) acceptance and constitutional import.” – government, the Supreme Court’s the following declaration: “[t]hat the of what happened. MMF Case, para. 140 declaration and conclusions with federal Crown failed to implement the respect to the need for this outstanding On the first part of the test for land grant provision set out in s. 31 of In previously decided cases, the constitutional grievance to be resolved laches, the Supreme Court held that the in accordance Manitoba Act, 1870 Supreme Court has also recognized in order to bring constitutional harmony acceptance depends on knowledge, with the honour of the Crown.” that “[t]he fundamental objective of to Canada will remain. In the words of capacity and freedom, which, in the the modern law of aboriginal and treaty The Court recognized that as long as MMF President David Chartrand, the context of historical injustices suffered rights is the reconciliation of aboriginal the constitutional grievance relating Manitoba Métis Community is “waiting by Métis, the power imbalance following peoples and non-aboriginal peoples to the failed implementation of s. for its partner in confederation to come Crown sovereignty, and the negative and their respective claims, interests 31 remains outstanding, the goal of back to the negotiating table.” consequences following delays in and ambitions.” allocating grants, meant that the delay reconciliation with the Manitoba Métis, itself could not be interpreted “as some which is mandated by s. 35 of the clear act by the [Métis] which amounts Constitution Act, 1982 and underlies to acquiescence or waiver.” The Court the purpose of s. 31 of the Manitoba also held that “in this rapidly evolving Act, remains unachieved. Notably, the area of the law, it is rather unrealistic Court recognized that the purpose of the to suggest that the Métis sat on their MMF’s claim was to secure a declaration rights before the courts were prepared that would assist in securing future to recognize those rights.” negotiations with the federal government in order to advance the “constitutional The second part of the test was whether goal of reconciliation that is reflected in there was any change in the Crown’s s. 35 of the Constitution.” For over 30 position as a result of the delay. The years, the MMF has been consistent Supreme Court dismissed this outright: that the goal of the litigation is to assist “[t]he answer is no.” Of particular with future negotiations to achieve a note, the Court went on to say, “[i]t is modern day land claims agreement for difficult to see how a court, in its role the Manitoba Métis community.

Understanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s 13 Land Claims 2013 Our Time Has Come 14 Decision in the Manitoba Metis Federation Case