The Challenges of Indigenous Oral History Since Mitchell v Minister of National Revenue

• Author: Alexandra Potamianos
• Position: Currently in her third year of the JD program at Osgoode Hall Law School
• Pages: 3-24

APPEAL VOLUME 26  3

ARTICLE

THE CHALLENGES OF INDIGENOUS ORAL

HISTORY SINCE MITCHELL V MINISTER OF

NATIONAL REVENUE

Alexandra Potamianos *

CITED: (2021) 26 Appeal 3

ABSTRACT

is article answers two questions: How has the Supreme Court of Canada’s Mitchell v

Minister of National Revenue decision been operationalized by trial-level courts? Based on these

ndings, does this decision make room for Aboriginal title and rights claimants to contest

dominant understandings of Indigenous presence in the Canadian settler state? Examining the

reasoning of six trial-level court decisions, this article nds that Mitchell was operationalized

in four of the cases to exclude Indigenous oral history evidence. In its application by trial

courts, this article argues that Mitchell does not create opportunities for Indigenous challenges

to colonial spatial relationships.

* Alexandra Potamianos is currently in her third year of the JD program at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Many thanks to Professor Benjamin L Berger for his encouragement and comments on earlier drafts

of this paper.

APPEAL VOLUME 26  4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................5

I. METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................7

II. DIFFICULTIES WITH INDIG ENOUS ORAL HISTORY EVIDENCE ................................... 7

III. EVOLUTION OF C ASE LAW ON INDIGENOUS ORAL

HISTORY EV IDENCE ...................................................................................................................10

IV. THE APPLICATION OF MITCHELL I N CANADIAN TRIAL COURTS .............................12

A. BENOIT V CANADA ...............................................................................................................12

B. ATTO RNEY GENERAL OF CANADA V ANISHNABE OF

WAUZHUSHK ONIGUM BAND ET AL ...............................................................................14

C. QUEEN V DREW ET AL .........................................................................................................14

D. WHITE BEAR FIRST NATIONS V SASKATCHEWAN

(ENVIRONMENT ) ...................................................................................................................15

E. COUCH ICHING FN ET AL V AG CANADA ET AL ............................................................17

F. R V DICKSON ..........................................................................................................................18

V. IM PLI CATI ONS O F MITCHELL FOR A BORIGINAL TITLE AND

RIGHTS CLAIMS ..........................................................................................................................19

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................24