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.