First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun et al. v. Yukon, 2015 YKCA 18

• Judge: Bauman, C.J.B.C., D. Smith and Goepel, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: November 04, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: 2015 YKCA 18;(2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 78 (YukCA)

Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation v. Yukon (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 78 (YukCA);

    654 W.A.C. 78

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.011

The First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, The Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in, Yukon Chapter-Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Yukon Conservation Society, Gill Cracknell, Karen Baltgailis, The Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Government of Yukon (appellant/defendant) and The Gwich'in Tribal Council (intervenor)

(14-YU752; 2015 YKCA 18)

Indexed As: First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun et al. v. Yukon

Yukon Court of Appeal

Bauman, C.J.B.C., D. Smith and Goepel, JJ.A.

November 4, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff First Nations sued the Government of Yukon to obtain a declaration that the Final Recommended Plan of the Peel Watershed Planning Commission was the approved regional land use plan for the Peel Watershed, pursuant to s. 11.6.0 of the Final Agreements of the plaintiffs with Canada and Yukon.

The Yukon Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] Yukon Cases Uned. 69, allowed the action, finding that Yukon had breached the Final Agreements when it changed the land use plan for the Peel Watershed, including making invalid Development and Access Modifications. The Final Agreements were land claims agreements within the meaning of s. 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The breach occurred at s. 11.6.3.2 of the treaty process (finalization of the regional land use plan). The court ordered that the process be remitted to s. 11.6.3.2 for Yukon to consult and then make its final modifications to the Final Recommended Plan. Yukon's final modifications had to be based on Yukon's original response, the Commission's response and the Final Recommended Plan itself. Yukon appealed, asserting that the judge had erred in finding that it had breached the Final Agreements. Alternatively, if it had breached the Final Agreements, Yukon asserted that the judge had erred in remitting the process to s. 11.6.3.2, rather than to s. 11.6.2 (consultation and response to the regional land use plan).

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. Yukon had not honoured the process as properly interpreted. Yukon's Development and Access Modifications were not a valid exercise of its right under s. 11.6.2 to "approve, reject or propose modifications" to the recommended regional land use plan. However, the court below erred in its remedy. The appropriate remedy for Yukon's failure to honour the process was to return the parties to the point at which the failure began. The breach began when Yukon failed to properly set out its detailed modifications at the s. 11.6.2 stage. This undermined the dialogue central to the plan for reconciliation. The matter was remitted to the s. 11.6.2 stage so as to allow Yukon to articulate its priorities in a valid manner.

Editor's Note: For a related decision, see (2015), 373 B.C.A.C. 225; 641 W.A.C. 225.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - See paragraphs 128 to 179.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4415

Treaties and proclamations - Breach - Effect of - See paragraphs 128 to 179.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5522

Lands - Land claim agreements - Interpretation - See paragraphs 115 to 127.

Cases Noticed:

Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation et al. v. Beckman et al. (2010), 408 N.R. 281; 295 B.C.A.C. 1; 501 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 8].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al. (2004), 327 N.R. 53; 206 B.C.A.C. 52; 338 W.A.C. 52; 2004 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 86].

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 86].

New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) (2005), 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 751 A.P.R. 202; 201 O.A.C. 293; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 101].

Minc v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice).

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 580 A.R. 75; 620 W.A.C. 75; 2014 NUCA 2, refd to. [para. 112].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 112].

Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2008), 373 N.R. 339; 236 O.A.C. 371; 2008 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 146].

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. 170].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al. (2005), 342 N.R. 82; 2005 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 173].

William v. British Columbia et al. (2014), 459 N.R. 287; 356 B.C.A.C. 1; 610 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 173].

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia - see William v. British Columbia et al.

Counsel:

J.B. Laskin, J. Terry, J. Roth and M. Radke, for the appellant;

T.R. Berger, Q.C., M.D. Rosling and C.P.S. Riley, for the respondents;

J. Langlois, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard at Whitehorse, Yukon, on August 20 and 21, 2015, by Bauman, C.J.B.C., D. Smith and Goepel, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal. On November 4, 2015, Bauman, C.J.B.C., delivered the following judgment for the court.