Time Is on Our Side: Colonialism through Laches and Limitations of Actions in the Age of Reconciliation
Author | Senwung Luk & Brooke Barrett |
Pages | 394-422 |
TimeIsonOurSide
CO LO NIA LI SMT H RO UG HL AC HES
AN D LIM ITAT IO NS OFAC T IO NS
IN T HEAG EOF RE CO NC I LI AT ION
Senwung Luk*BrookeBarre**
Get overit Thos erea derswh ohave braved thec omme ntse ctio nona l
mostanyonlinenewsarticledeal ingwithinjusticesagainstI ndigenous
peop lesw illb efam ili arw itht hisp hras ean dthe unpr inta blei nvect ive
ladenti radethat usually followsSuch viewsare rightly dismissed as
crueland ignorantofthevery realhistory ofcolonialisma ndgenocide
that Indigenous people have faced throughout Canadashistory and
continue toface tothisdaySuch a sentiment isusual lynot explicitly
voicedinthe genteelchambers ofCanadascourtroomsAsa nillustra
tiveexampletheSupremeCourtofCanadainarecentdecisionsetout
that thereconciliat ionof Aboriginal andnonAborigina lCanadia ns
ina mutuallyrespec tfullongterm relationshipis the grandpurpos e
ofs of theConstitution ActWeargue that there isa special
rolefort hecourts evenmoret hanthe legislativeand executiveactors
ingovernmentin makingmanifest thekindof reconciliationthatsuch
grandstatementsenvisage
Starting withthe paradigmofreconcil iationasset outbythe Can
adiancourtswelookathowthosesamecourtshavebeendealingwith
theissueofl imitationperiodsand lachesSuchdoctrines barthepursuit
SenwungLukBAYaleJDOsgoodeBCLOxonPartneratOlthui sKleer
TownshendLLPToronto
BrookeBarreBAUofCLLBUNBLLMUofCAssociateatRaea ndCo
Ca lga ry
BeckmanvLileSalmonCarm acksFirstNationSCCatparaBeckman
Time Is on Our Side
ofclaims incourt ifthe defendantisable toshowthat theplainti de
layed bringing the claim Such doct rines are often applied when the
Crownas defendantmakes summary judgmentmotionswhere afull
recordof the evidenceis notyet availabletot hecourt Weargue here
thatwherelachesandlimitationsareappliedwithoutthefullconsidera
tion of the historical circ umstances of Indigenous communities and
the very real limits both i n regard to their legal incapacities and the
resource constraints thatthey havefaced inorder tobri nglawsuits to
asserttheirrightsthecourtsriskdoingrealinjusticetothecommunities
thathavecometothemforhelpWhilelimitationsandlachesc anoften
beinst rumentsofju sticewhenthey areused inamec hanisticfash ion
withoutdueconsiderationfor thepartic ularcircu mstancesoft hecase
theycanr evisitandreinforcet hewrongaboutwhicha partyhascome
tothecourtforvindicationWhatisatstakehereisnothinglessthanthe
capacityofthecour tstobepartoftheprocessofreconcil iationthatthe
SupremeCourtofCanadahassograndlyendorsed
A. RECONCILIATION AND THE COURTS
Theidea thatthere is worktobe donein promotingreconci liationbe
tween Indigenous people and nonIndigenous people in Canada has
beena running themeinCa nadianjurisprudenceWhileatthebegin
ningof theSupreme Courtsjurisprudenceon reconciliation theCourt
seemed to suggest that the work ofr econciliation was for Indigenous
people to do in reconciling themselves with the sovereignty of the
Crow n the Court citing the work of the Truth and Reconciliation
CommissionTRChas recently recastthe goal asone ofrebuilding
the Crownsrelationship with Aborig inal peoples in Canada
Itmay
perhapsbemostappropriatethentolett heTRCspeakonthehistorical
injusticest hathaveledto theneed forreconciliation betweenIndigen
ousandnonIndigenouspeople
SeeforexampleR v Van der PeetSCRatparaLamerCJpara
McLachlinJdi ssentingVan der PeetR v Sappier; R v GraySCCatpara
Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests)SCCatparaMikisew
Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Canadian He ritage)SCCatparaBeck-
manabovenoteatparaManitobaMétisFederationvCanadaAor neyGeneral
SCCatparaMMF
Van der Peetabovenoteatpara
DanielsvCanadaMinisterofIndianAairsa ndReconciliationSCCatpara
To continue reading
Request your trial