Daniels c. Canada, 2013 FC 6 (2013)

Numéro de Registre:T-2172-99
Parties:Daniels c. Canada
 
EXTRAIT GRATUIT

Federal Court - Daniels v. Canada

Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc6/2013fc6.html

Federal Court

Cour fédérale

Date: 20130108

Docket: T-2172-99

Citation: 2013 FC 6

BETWEEN:

HARRY DANIELS, GABRIEL DANIELS, LEAH GARDNER, TERRY JOUDREY and

THE CONGRESS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

Plaintiffs

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, as represented by THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Defendants

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para .

I. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

II. Court Summary.................................................................................................... 19

III. Parties.................................................................................................................. 29

A. Gabriel Daniels........................................................................................... 30

B. Leah Gardner.............................................................................................. 34

C. Terry Joudrey.............................................................................................. 37

D. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development...................... 38

E. The Attorney General of Canada............................................................... 39

F. Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.................................................................. 40

IV. Discretion to Decide............................................................................................ 48

V. Nature of the Problem......................................................................................... 84

VI. Problem of Definition.......................................................................................... 111

A. Non-status Indians...................................................................................... 116

B. Métis........................................................................................................... 124

VII. Witnesses............................................................................................................. 131

A. Ian Cowie (Plaintiffs’ Witness).................................................................. 132

B. John Leslie (Plaintiffs’ Witness)................................................................. 137

VIII. Historical Expert Witnesses................................................................................. 147

A. William Wicken (Plaintiffs’ Witness)......................................................... 147

B. Stephen Patterson (Defendants’ Witness).................................................. 152

C. Gwynneth Jones (Plaintiffs’ Witness)........................................................ 161

D. Sebastian Grammond (Plaintiffs’ Witness)................................................ 170

E. Alexander von Gernet (Defendants’ Witness)........................................... 175

IX. Historical Evidence.............................................................................................. 183

A. Pre-Confederation Era................................................................................ 183

(1) Atlantic Canada................................................................................. 184

(a) Nova Scotia.............................................................................. 211

(b) New Brunswick........................................................................ 225

(c) Prince Edward Island............................................................... 227

(d) Newfoundland and Labrador................................................... 229

(2) Quebec/Ontario (Upper/Lower Canada)........................................... 233

(a) Kahnawake............................................................................... 256

(b) Six Nations/Grand River.......................................................... 259

(c) Impact of these Issues.............................................................. 261

(3) Pre-Confederation Statutes............................................................... 268

(4) Pre-Confederation Reports re “Indians”........................................... 288

(5) Pre-Confederation Treaties................................................................ 302

(6) Synopsis: Indian Power Pre-Confederation...................................... 319

B. Confederation............................................................................................. 324

(1) Genesis............................................................................................... 324

(2) Objects and Purposes of Confederation............................................ 339

C. Post-Confederation..................................................................................... 355

(1) Rupert’s Land.................................................................................... 355

(2) Post-Confederation Statutes – 1867-1870........................................ 360

(3) Aboriginal Population of the Northwest........................................... 369

(4) The Manitoba Act 1870 /The Scrip System......................................... 385

D. Other Examples – Half-breeds and Section 91(24).................................... 423

(1) Adhesion to Treaty 3......................................................................... 424

(2) The Reserve and Industrial School at St. Paul de Métis................... 437

(3) Liquor Policy..................................................................................... 445

(4) “Half-Breeds” whose Ancestors took Scrip...................................... 453

(5) Other Examples of Jurisdiction over Non-Status Indians................. 459

E. Modern Era................................................................................................. 469

(1) Pre-Patriation..................................................................................... 469

(2) Post-Patriation................................................................................... 485

F. Treaties and Half-Breeds............................................................................ 513

X. Legal Analysis and Conclusions.......................................................................... 526

A. Section 91(24) - Métis and Non-Status Indians......................................... 526

(1) Introduction....................................................................................... 526

(2) Interpretation Principles..................................................................... 534

(3) Judicial Guidance.............................................................................. 545

B. Fiduciary Duty............................................................................................ 602

C. Duty to Negotiate....................................................................................... 610

XI. Costs.................................................................................................................... 618

XII. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 619

PHELAN J.

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] The critical question posed in this litigation is straightforward – Are non-status Indians and Métis [MNSI], identified as “Indians” under s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3 (UK) [the Constitution]? Section 91(24) reads:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

91. Il sera loisible à la Reine, de l’avis et du consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des Communes, de faire des lois pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, relativement à toutes les matières ne tombant pas dans les catégories de sujets par la présente loi exclusivement assignés aux législatures des provinces; mais, pour plus de garantie, sans toutefois restreindre la généralité des termes ci-haut employés dans le présent article, il est par la présente déclaré que (nonobstant toute disposition contraire énoncée dans la présente loi) l’autorité législative exclusive du parlement du Canada s’étend à toutes les matières tombant dans les catégories de sujets ci-dessous énumérés, savoir :

24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

24. Les Indiens et les terres réservées pour les Indiens.

[2] The canvas over which the parties have painted the answer encompasses Canadian history virtually from the time of Champlain in Passamaquoddy Bay in 1603 to the present day. The reach of time and space makes this case a difficult one, not amenable to the same organization and analysis as has been the case with specific disputes over specific agreements or treaties affecting natives. However, for ease of organization, these Reasons generally follow a chronological framework.

[3] The Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue the following declarations:

(a) that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians”...

Pour continuer la lecture

SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI GRATUIT