Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 291 Man.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps*, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 291 Man.R.(2d) 1 (SCC);2013 SCC 14;EYB 2013-219131;[2013] 4 WWR 665;[2013] 1 SCR 623;223 ACWS (3d) 941;[2013] SCJ No 14 (QL);291 Man R (2d) 1;[2013] ACS no 14;27 RPR (5th) 1;570 WAC 1;JE 2013-429;355 DLR (4th) 577;441 NR 209

Métis Federation Inc. v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 291 Man.R.(2d) 1 (SCC);

      570 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.022

Manitoba Metis Federation Inc., Yvon Dumont, Billy Jo De La Ronde, Roy Chartrand, Ron Erickson, Claire Riddle, Jack Fleming, Jack McPherson, Don Roulette, Edgar Bruce Jr., Freda Lundmark, Miles Allarie, Celia Klassen, Alma Belhumeur, Stan Guiboche, Jeanne Perrault, Marie Banks Ducharme and Earl Henderson (appellants) v. Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Manitoba (respondents) and Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Métis National Council, Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation of Ontario, Treaty One First Nations and Assembly of First Nations (interveners)

(33880; 2013 SCC 14; 2013 CSC 14)

Indexed As: Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps*, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.

March 8, 2013.

Summary:

Manitoba entered Confederation on July 15, 1870, following the passage of the Manitoba Act, 1870. Section 31 of the Act provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children. Section 32 of the Act contained quieting of title provisions to assure recognition of existing property rights. In 1981, the plaintiffs, the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. (MMF) and 17 individuals (Métis), commenced an action for declaratory relief against Canada and Manitoba.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 223 Man.R.(2d) 42, refused to grant any of the declarations sought by the plaintiffs and dismissed their claims in their entirety. The court held, inter alia: (1) that the MMF lacked standing to pursue the action; (2) the plaintiffs' action, having been commenced in 1981, was statute barred by the Limitation of Actions Act (Man.); (3) the doctrine of laches and acquiescence applied and were a complete defence to the plaintiffs' claim; and (4) there was no fiduciary relationship between Canada and the Métis, nor was the doctrine of honour of the Crown implicated. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 255 Man.R.(2d) 167; 486 W.A.C. 167, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Rothstein and Moldaver, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal in part. The court held that the MMF should be granted standing. The obligations in ss. 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act did not impose a fiduciary duty on the Crown. However, the Métis were entitled to a declaration that the federal Crown failed to implement the land grant provision set out in s. 31 in accordance with the honour of the Crown. The plaintiffs' claim based on the honour of the Crown was not barred by the law of limitations or the equitable doctrine of laches. The court agreed with the courts below that the s. 32 claim was not established and found it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the implementing statutes.

Editor's Note: *Deschamps, J., took no part in the judgment.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.24

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Limitation of actions - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... this Court has found that limitations of actions statutes cannot prevent the courts, as guardians of the Constitution, from issuing declarations on the constitutionality of legislation. By extension, limitations acts cannot prevent the courts from issuing a declaration on the constitutionality of the Crown's conduct" - See paragraph 135.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5

General principles - Canadian constitution - What constitutes - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 1203 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1017

Interpretation of Constitution Act - General principles - Laches - [See thirteenth Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1203

Manitoba Act, 1870 - Land grants to Métis children (s. 31) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 31 was a constitutional provision crafted for the purpose of resolving Aboriginal concerns and permitting the creation of the Province of Manitoba - See paragraph 93.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1203

Manitoba Act, 1870 - Land grants to Métis children (s. 31) - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2986 and third, seventh, eighth, tenth and twelfth Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 1204

Manitoba Act, 1870 - Quieting of titles (s. 32) - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2986 and third and ninth Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2982

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - Practice - Time for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.24 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2984

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - Practice - Declaratory judgment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.24 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2986

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - Parties - Standing - The plaintiffs, the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. (MMF) and 17 individual Métis people, sought numerous declarations respecting the implementation of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (ss. 31 and 32) - At issue was whether the MMF had public interest standing - The Supreme Court of Canada granted the MMF standing - While the Manitoba Act provided for individual entitlements, that did not negate the fact that the MMF and the Métis advanced a collective claim of the Métis people based on a promise made to them in return for their agreement to recognize Canada's sovereignty over them - That collective claim merited allowing the body representing the collective Métis interest (i.e., the MMF) to come before the court - See paragraphs 41 to 45.

Equity - Topic 2061

Equitable defences - Laches - General - [See twelfth and thirteenth Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Equity - Topic 3611

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Crown - [See first, second and third Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - [See first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eleventh and thirteenth Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The relationship between the Métis and the Crown, viewed generally, is fiduciary in nature. However, not all dealings between parties in a fiduciary relationship are governed by fiduciary obligations. In the Aboriginal context, a fiduciary duty may arise as a result of the 'Crown [assuming] discretionary control over specific Aboriginal interests' ... The focus is on the particular interest that is the subject matter of the dispute ... The content of the Crown's fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal peoples varies with the nature and importance of the interest sought to be protected ..." - See paragraphs 48 and 49.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in addition to the situation where the Crown administers lands or property in which Aboriginal peoples had an interest, "A fiduciary duty may also arise from an undertaking, if the following conditions are met: (1) an undertaking by the alleged fiduciary to act in the best interests of the alleged beneficiary or beneficiaries; (2) a defined person or class of persons vulnerable to a fiduciary's control (the beneficiary or beneficiaries); and (3) a legal or substantial practical interest of the beneficiary or beneficiaries that stands to be adversely affected by the alleged fiduciary's exercise of discretion or control" - See paragraphs 48 to 50.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - Section 32 of the Act contained quieting of title provisions to assure recognition of existing property rights - Over 100 years later, the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. and 17 individual Métis people (Métis) sought declaratory relief, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the Crown in implementing s. 31 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the obligations in ss. 31 and 32 did not impose a fiduciary duty on the Crown - The Métis did not have a specific Aboriginal interest in the land nor did the Crown undertake to act in the best interests of the Métis such as to give rise to a fiduciary duty in implementing ss. 31 and 32 - See paragraphs 46 to 64.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the principle of the honour of the Crown - The court discussed when the honour of the Crown was engaged and what duties were imposed by the honour of the Crown - See paragraphs 65 to 83.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... when the issue is the implementation of a constitutional obligation to an Aboriginal people, the honour of the Crown requires that the Crown: (1) takes a broad purposive approach to the interpretation of the promise; and (2) acts diligently to fulfill it ..." - The court elaborated on this statement, concluding that "The question is simply this: Viewing the Crown's conduct as a whole in the context of the case, did the Crown act with diligence to pursue the fulfillment of the purposes of the obligation?" - See paragraphs 75 to 83.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Not every mistake or negligent act in implementing a constitutional obligation to an Aboriginal people brings dishonour to the Crown. Implementation, in the way of human affairs, may be imperfect. However, a persistent pattern of errors and indifference that substantially frustrates the purposes of a solemn promise may amount to a betrayal of the Crown's duty to act honourably in fulfilling its promise. Nor does the honour of the Crown constitute a guarantee that the purposes of the promise will be achieved, as circumstances and events may prevent fulfillment, despite the Crown's diligent efforts" - See paragraph 82.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - Over 100 years later, interested Métis sought declaratory relief, arguing that the Crown failed to comply with the honour of the Crown in the implementation of s. 31 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Métis were entitled to a declaration that the federal Crown failed to act with diligence in implementing the land grant provision (s. 31) in accordance with the honour of the Crown - See paragraphs 96 to 128.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The s. 31 obligation made to the Métis is part of our Constitution and engages the honour of the Crown. The honour of the Crown required the Crown to interpret s. 31 in a purposive manner and to diligently pursue fulfilment of the purposes of the obligation. This was not done. The Métis were promised implementation of the s. 31 land grants in 'the most effectual and equitable manner'. Instead, the implementation was ineffectual and inequitable. This was not a matter of occasional negligence, but of repeated mistakes and inaction that persisted for more than a decade. A government sincerely intent on fulfilling the duty that its honour demanded could and should have done better" - See paragraph 128.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - Section 32 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided rules respecting "the quieting of titles, and assuring to the settlers in the Province the peaceable possession of the lands now held by them" - Over 100 years later, interested Métis sought declaratory relief, arguing that the Crown failed to comply with the honour of the Crown in the implementation of s. 32 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... the honour of the Crown was not engaged by s. 32 of the Manitoba Act. Unlike s. 31, it was not a promise made specifically to an Aboriginal group, but rather a benefit made generally available to all settlers, Métis and non-Métis alike. The honour of the Crown is not engaged whenever an Aboriginal person accesses a benefit" - See paragraph 95.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - Over 100 years later, interested Métis sought declaratory relief, arguing that the Crown failed to comply with the honour of the Crown in the implementation of s. 31 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that limitations acts could not bar the Métis claim for a declaration that the Crown did not act honourably in implementing the constitutional obligation in s. 31 - See paragraphs 133 to 144.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada opined that the six year limitation period on claims for equitable relief in the Manitoba Limitations Act applied to breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the administration of Aboriginal property - See paragraph 138.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - Section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, provided for grants of land in Manitoba to Métis children - Over 100 years later, interested Métis sought declaratory relief, arguing that the Crown failed to comply with the honour of the Crown in the implementation of s. 31 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Métis claim for a declaration was not barred by laches - Acquiescence was not established in the equitable sense and there was no change in the Crown's position as a result of the delay - See paragraphs 145 to 153.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3

General - Duty owed to Métis by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties and honour of the Crown) - The Supreme Court of Canada opined that "It is difficult to see how a court, in its role as guardian of the Constitution, could apply an equitable doctrine to defeat a claim for a declaration that a provision of the Constitution has not been fulfilled as required by the honour of the Crown. We note that, in Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327, at p. 357, Lamer, C.J,. noted that the doctrine of laches does not apply to a constitutional division of powers question ... The Constitution is the supreme law of our country, and it demands that courts be empowered to protect its substance and uphold its promises" - See paragraph 153.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - Limitation of actions - [See tenth and eleventh Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5503

Lands - Métis lands - Duties of Crown re - [See third and seventh Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1905

Actions - Breach of fiduciary duty - [See eleventh Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3.3 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7582

Actions against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - Charter remedies (incl. application to strike down unconstitutional statute) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.24 ].

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2986 ].

Practice - Topic 227.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Métis associations or federations - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 2986 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 41].

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; 434 N.R. 257; 325 B.C.A.C. 1; 553 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 43].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57, refd to. [para. 47].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; 327 N.R. 53; 206 B.C.A.C. 52; 338 W.A.C. 52; 2004 SCC 73, refd to. [paras. 49, 203].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245; 297 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 79, refd to. [paras. 49, 189].

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society et al. v. Alberta et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261; 416 N.R. 198; 499 A.R. 345; 514 W.A.C. 345; 2011 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 50].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Powley (S.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; 308 N.R. 201; 177 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Blais (E.L.J.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236; 308 N.R. 371; 180 Man.R.(2d) 3; 310 W.A.C. 3; 2003 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 54].

Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation et al. v. Beckman et al., [2010] 3 S.C.R. 103; 408 N.R. 281; 295 B.C.A.C. 1; 501 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 66].

Taku River Tlingit First Nation et al. v. Tulsequah Chief Mine Project (Project Assessment Director) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; 327 N.R. 133; 206 B.C.A.C. 132; 338 W.A.C. 132; 2004 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 67].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 69].

Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; 269 N.R. 207; 2001 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Ontario v. Canada (1895), 25 S.C.R. 434, refd to. [para. 73].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388; 342 N.R. 82; 2005 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 73].

Churchwardens of St. Saviour in Southwark, Re (1613), 10 Co. Rep. 66b; 77 E.R. 1025, refd to. [para. 73].

Roger Earl of Rutland's Case (1608), 8 Co. Rep. 55a; 77 E.R. 555, refd to. [para. 73].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 557; 401 N.R. 246; 2010 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 79].

Dumont et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) and Manitoba (Attorney General), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 279; 105 N.R. 228; 65 Man.R.(2d) 182, refd to. [para. 131].

Kingstreet Investments Ltd. et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 3; 355 N.R. 336; 309 N.B.R.(2d) 255; 799 A.P.R. 255; 2007 SCC 1, refd to. [paras. 134, 225].

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 181; 383 N.R. 247; 320 Sask.R. 305; 444 W.A.C. 305; 2009 SCC 7, refd to. [paras. 134, 225].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd to. [paras. 134, 225].

Canadian Bar Association v. British Columbia et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 1342; 59 B.C.L.R.(4th) 38; 2006 BCSC 1342, refd to. [para. 134].

Waddell v. Schreyer (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 431 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1982), 142 D.L.R.(3d) 177 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1982] 2 S.C.R. vii, refd to. [para. 134].

Secession of Quebec, Reference Re, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 140].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 141].

Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia et al. (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 248; 235 W.A.C. 248; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 344; 2000 BCCA 539, refd to. [para. 143].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 145].

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874), L.R. 5 P.C. 221, refd to. [paras. 146, 272].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [paras. 150, 272].

Ontario Hydro v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327; 158 N.R. 161; 66 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 153, 301].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 163].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 214].

Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1868), 74 U.S. 386, refd to. [para. 234].

United States v. Marion (1971), 404 U.S. 307, refd to. [para. 234].

Sparham-Souter v. Town and Country Developments (Essex) Ltd., [1976] 1 Q.B. 858 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 236].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 237].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 239].

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, addendum 157 N.R. 372; 66 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 246].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 254].

Ultramares Corp. v. Touche (1931), 174 N.E. 441, refd to. [para. 266].

Design Services Ltd. et al. v. Canada, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 737; 374 N.R. 77; 2008 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 266].

National Westminster Bank plc v. Spectrum Plus Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 A.C. 680; 338 N.R. 201; 2005 UKHL 41, refd to. [para. 279].

Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429; 358 N.R. 197; 222 O.A.C. 324; 2007 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 279].

Barber v. Proudfoot, [1890-1891] 1 W.L.T.R. 144 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 287].

Statutes Noticed:

Manitoba Act, S.C. 1870, c. 3, sect. 31 [para. 11]; sect. 32 [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 2003), vol. 16(2), para. 912 [paras. 147, 280].

Hogg, Peter W., Monahan, Patrick J., and Wright, Wade K., Liability of the Crown (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 98, 99 [para. 268].

Manitoba, Law Reform Commission, Limitations (2010), p. 26 [para. 250].

Meagher, R.P., Gummon, W.M.C., Lehane, J.R.F., Equity Doctrines and Remedies (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 755 [para. 152].

Ontario, Limitations Act Consultation Group, Recommendations for a New Limitations Act: Report of the Limitations Act Consultation Group (1991), p. 20 [para. 245].

Rotman, Leonard I., Wewaykum: A New Spin on the Crown's Fiduciary Obligations to Aboriginal Peoples? (2004), U.B.C. L. Rev. 219, pp. 241, 242 [para. 141].

Schachter, Harley, Selected Current Issues in Aboriginal Rights Cases: Evidence, Limitations and Fiduciary Obligations, in The 2001 Isaac Pitblado Lectures: Practising Law In An Aboriginal Reality (2001), pp. 232, 233 [para. 141].

Slattery, Brian, Aboriginal Rights and the Honour of the Crown (2005), 29 S.C.L.R.(2d) 433, p. 436 [para. 67].

Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, p. 753 [para. 66].

Counsel:

Thomas R. Berger, Q.C., James Aldridge, Q.C., Harley Schachter and Guylaine Grenier, for the appellants;

Mark Kindrachuk, Q.C., Mitchell R. Taylor, Q.C., and Sharlene Telles-Langdon, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Heather Leonoff, Q.C., and Michael Conner, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

P. Mitch McAdam, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Written submissions only by Douglas B. Titosky, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta;

Clement Chartier, Q.C., and Marc LeClair, for the intervener, the Métis National Council;

Jason Taylor Madden, for the intervener, the Métis Nation of Alberta;

Jean M. Teillet and Arthur Pape, for the intervener, the Métis Nation of Ontario;

Jeffrey R.W. Rath, for the intervener, the Treaty One First Nations;

Written submissions only by Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., David C. Nahwegahbow and Bruce Elwood, for the intervener, the Assembly of First Nations.

Solicitors of Record:

Rosenbloom Aldridge Bartley & Rosling, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;

Attorney General of Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta;

Métis National Council, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Métis National Council;

JTM Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Métis Nation of Alberta;

Pape Salter Teillet, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Métis Nation of Ontario;

Rath & Company, Priddis, Alberta, for the intervener, the Treaty One First Nations;

Arvay Finlay, Vancouver, British Columbia; Nahwegahbow, Corbiere, Rama, Ontario, for the intervener, the Assembly of First Nations.

This appeal was heard on December 13, 2011, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Lebel, Deschamps*, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on March 8, 2013, in both official languages, including the following opinions:

McLachlin, C.J.C. and Karakatsanis, J. (Lebel, Fish, Abella and Cromwell, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 155;

Rothstein, J., dissenting (Moldaver, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 156 to 303.

*Deschamps, J., took no part in the judgment.