The Trilogy: Williams, Gladue, and Ipeelee (and a Few Others)

• Author: Jonathan Rudin
• Pages: 73-109

73

The Trilogy:

Williams, Gladue,

andIpeelee

(and a Few Others)

4

I. Prologue ................................................ 74

A. R v Sinnisiak and Uluksuk ............................. 74

B. R v Fireman ........................................ 80

II. The Trilogy .............................................. 84

A. R v Williams ........................................ 84

B. R v Gladue ......................................... 86

C. Interlude: R v Wells .................................. 93

D. R v Ipeelee ......................................... 95

Best Practices ............................................ 109

Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

74 Indigenous People and the Criminal Justice System

Since 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada has heard three significant cases that have

addressed the issue of Indigenous people and the criminal justice system—R v Williams1

in 1998, R v Gladue2 in 1999, and R v Ipeelee3 in 2012. This chapter will look at each

of these cases in some detail—as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Wells4

in 2000.

It would be wrong, however, to think that Williams marked the first occasion that

courts ever turned their mind to the fact that the accused before them was an Indigen-

ous person. This fact has often played a role in decisions. Two examples from 1917

and 1971 will make that point.

The first example, R v Sinnisiak and Uluksuk5 in 1917, was the first criminal trial

involving Inuit accused in Canada and was also a key early instance of Canadian

authorities imposing Canadian law in the Arctic as part of the state’s colonial project.

The second example, R v Fireman6 in 1971, is an early illustration of a court attempt-

ing to take into account the unique circumstances of Indigenous oenders at sentencing

despite the lack of statutory requirements for such considerations at the time.

I. Prologue

A. R v Sinnisiak and Uluksuk

Popular Canadian history sees the nation-building project accomplished with the com-

pletion of the railway to British Columbia on November 7, 1885. The iconic image of the

Last Spike is meant to show how this engineering feat literally tied the country together.

The reality, however, is that the railway created a link between the country only from

east to west, and the north was not touched by these developments. While Canada

included the northern portions of the provinces and the territories, in practical terms,

those lands remained Indigenous lands (the occasional gold rush aside). The attempt

to impose Canadian values on the original inhabitants of the north did not begin in

earnest until the 20th century. In that endeavour, criminal law had an important role.

This is best illustrated by the trials of Sinnisiak and Uluksuk.

The catalyst for the trials of Sinnisiak and Uluksuk was the competition of Chris-

tian churches for the souls of Indigenous people—in this case, the Inuit of the Arctic.

1 [1998] 1 SCR 1128, 1998 CanLII 782 [Williams cited to SCR].

2 [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 [Gladue cited to SCR].

3 2012 SCC 13 [Ipeelee].

4 2000 SCC 10 [Wells].

5 The source for the information on the trials of Sinnisiak and Uluksuk comes primarily from

RG Moyles, British Law and Arctic Men: The Celebrated 1917 Murder Trials of Sinnisiak and

Uluksuk, First Inuit Tried Under White Man’s Law (Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie

Books, 1979).

6 1971 CanLII 450,[1971] OJ No 1642 (QL) (CA) [Fireman cited to CanLII].

Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

Chapter 4 Williams, Gladue, andIpeelee (and a Few Others) 75

Father Jean-Baptiste Rouvière was sent by the Roman Catholic Church to begin mis-

sionary work among the Copper Inuit of the northern and central areas of the North-

west Territories in the summer of 1911, and Father Guillaume Le Roux joined Rouvière

in the summer of 1912. In October 1913, the two priests left for the Arctic coast of the

Coppermine River region in what is now Nunavut to counteract a Church of England

missionary, and they were not heard from again.7

Upon hearing reports indicating the destruction of the missionaries’ camp and

their possible death, the Roman Catholic Church requested a police investigation,

which the North-West Mounted Police began in 1915 under the command of Inspec-

tor Charles Deering La Nauze.8

Near Bloody Falls in the Coppermine region, Uluksuk, who was described as a

“shaman,” came under suspicion when he was found with some of the priests’ cloth-

ing and items, and many of the community members soon divulged the story of the

priests’ deaths.9 As the community members described, Sinnisiak and Uluksuk, at

Sinnisiak’s command, had killed the priests.10

Once they were located, Uluksuk and Sinnisiak surrendered peacefully to the

police. Sinnisiak confessed that he and Uluksuk had killed the priests out of fear after

a confrontation with them. Sinnisiak said that after the priests had been killed, he and

Uluksuk ate pieces of their liver.11 Uluksuk confessed as well.12 From the police per-

spective, the case wrapped up in late May 1916, but the police could not leave the

community with the accused until July.13 Inspector La Nauze took the time to write

about the case and what he had experienced living among the Inuit. His reflections on

the impact of the impending intrusion of white settlers and traders—civilization in his

terms—was both prophetic and wistful:

Should any epidemic fever strike these people no doubt many deaths would result, for

the people usually live in large communities. Indeed, to us, who have had the good for-

tune to see these people live in their strenuous, healthy existence on the Arctic coast,

we cannot wish them better fortune than to hope that civilization may ever be kept at

arm’s length from them.14

Sinnisiak and Uluksuk were to be tried separately, by jury, in Edmonton during

August 1917 for the murder of Father Rouvière. Sinnisiak was tried first, and he

7 Moyles, supra note 5 at 4-6.

8 Ibid at 7-8, 10.

9 Ibid at 23-24.

10 Ibid at 26-27.

11 Ibid at 28-30.

12 Ibid at 32-33.

13 Ibid at 32.

14 Ibid at 33.

Copyright © 2022 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.