Canada: Case Law Summaries – Aboriginal Law

Last Updated: March 22 2019
Article by McCarthy Tétrault's Mining Practice Group

Most Read Contributor in Canada, April 2019


In this case, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judicially reviewed a decision of the Aboriginal Consultation Office (ACO) that the duty to consult with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was not triggered in relation to the Grand Rapids pipeline project proposed in Treaty 8 territory. The Alberta Energy Regulator had approved the pipeline in 2014.

Athabasca, a Treaty 8 First Nation, sought to quash the ACO's decision, but, novelly, neither asked for the matter to be returned to the ACO for reconsideration, nor challenged the regulator's approval of the project. Instead, it sought declarations about the ACO's policies and procedures applicable to whether the duty to consult is triggered, including the ACO's use of "consultation maps" when making that determination. The ACO had found that the duty to consult was not triggered on the basis of the pipeline's location on a map that identified areas where a duty to consult may, or may not, arise.

Due to mootness, the Court declined to make a declaration about whether the duty to consult was triggered. However, the Court did confirm that the ACO, as a Crown servant, has authority to decide whether the duty is triggered. The duty does not arise solely because of the taking up of land in a treaty area. Rather, when the "taking up" process occurs, the question is whether it may adversely impact a First Nation's exercise of its treaty rights. If there is no potential impact, the duty is not engaged. With respect to consultation maps, the Court noted that a map alone cannot be used to determine whether a duty to consult is triggered. It is a tool, but the ACO must also engage the First Nation to assess its claim independently of the map.

The Court also held that procedural fairness is owed in the determination of whether a duty to consult is triggered. Here, once the ACO understood that Athabasca believed there was a duty to consult, the ACO should have provided notice that it would be making a final determination on the issue. The ACO should also have outlined the procedure it would undertake in making its determination, the evidence required to meet the trigger test, and the applicable deadlines. Finally, once the ACO made its decision, it should have provided reasons that show it fully and fairly considered the information and evidence submitted by the First Nation.


In this decision, the Ontario Superior Court set aside a permit authorizing mining exploration on the basis that consultation with the affected First Nation had been inadequate.

The Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (Ministry) granted the permit to Landore Resource Canada Inc. in March 2016, allowing Landore to do exploration drilling in Northern Ontario within the Treaty 9 territory of the Eabametoong First Nation. Eabametoong challenged the issuance of the permit on the basis that the Ministry had not discharged its duty to consult.

In setting aside the permit, the Court noted that the Ministry and its delegate, Landore, had created clear expectations as to how the duty to consult would be fulfilled in this case, but had then changed the process without meeting those expectations or offering any explanation.

The Court confirmed that while the Ministry has the right to change the course of the consultation process, it must do so in a way that upholds the honour of the Crown. The Ministry had not met this standard, and had altered the consultation process, such that it could no longer be considered a genuine attempt at "talking together for mutual understanding."

Key to the Court's conclusion was a private meeting between Landore and the Ministry, at which Landore told the Ministry it was in negotiations with another mining company and needed the permit as soon as possible. Based on the consultation that had taken place prior to the private meeting, Eabametoong had a reasonable expectation of a further community meeting and the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding before a decision on the permit would be made. After the private meeting, however, the Ministry advised Eabametoong that it would be issuing the permit, did not attempt to set up a community meeting, and gave no reasons for the changed approach.

Landore's permit application was remitted to the Ministry pending completion of adequate consultation.


In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that there is no duty to consult Indigenous groups at any stage of the law-making process.

The appeal concerned a judicial review by the Mikisew Cree First Nation relating to the former Conservative government's introduction of omnibus legislation in 2012 that amended several Canadian environmental and regulatory laws. The Mikisew Cree were not consulted on the amendments. They argued that the lack of consultation was a breach of the duty to consult, which they said was triggered because in developing and introducing legislation that reduced federal oversight on projects that may affect their treaty rights, the Ministers were acting in an executive (rather than a legislative) capacity.

The Court unanimously dismissed the Mikisew Cree's appeal, finding that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the Mikisew Cree's claim because the Federal Courts Act does not allow for judicial review of parliamentary activities and actions of Ministers in the parliamentary process. However, the Court was divided on whether legislation could be challenged, once enacted, for a failure to consult Indigenous groups.

The majority (in three separate concurring decisions) ruled that there could be no duty to consult at any stage of the legislative process, including royal assent. Even once enacted, legislation cannot be challenged on the basis of a failure to consult Indigenous groups whose Aboriginal or treaty rights may be adversely affected by the legislation. The majority recognized a duty to consult at any stage in the legislative process would be contrary to parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, and/or the separation of powers, which protect the law-making process from judicial oversight. It would also pose significant practical difficulties for the legislative process.

In minority reasons, Justice Abella held that the enactment of legislation that has the potential to adversely affect asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights would give rise to a duty to consult and that legislation enacted in breach of that duty could be judicially challenged.

For more on the Court's multiple decisions in this case and their implications, see McCarthy Tétrault LLP's Canadian ERA Perspectives blog post entitled "No Duty to Consult Indigenous Groups on Legislation – Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council)."


In this decision, the B.C. Supreme Court declined to grant the West Moberly First Nations an injunction prohibiting further work on the Site C hydropower project in B.C.

West Moberly is a signatory to Treaty 8, which grants traditional hunting, fishing and trapping rights. They oppose Site C on the basis that its environmental and ecological impacts will infringe these rights. West Moberly has previously challenged the project through a series of judicial reviews of the regulatory approvals Site C received. Those challenges were unsuccessful (see Mining in the Courts, Vol. VIII).

After the failed judicial reviews, West Moberly commenced an action against the province and B.C. Hydro in which they assert that Site C unjustifiably infringes their rights under Treaty 8. In the action, West Moberly seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting B.C. Hydro from continuing or completing work on Site C. In this particular application, West Moberly sought a temporary injunction, seeking to either prohibit all work on Site C for 24 months, or alternatively, work in 13 areas of critical importance to West Moberly's treaty rights.

The Court refused to grant an injunction in either form. While West Moberly's underlying action presented a serious question to be tried, and the project presented a risk of irreparable harm, the balance of convenience weighed against granting an injunction and delaying Site C. Among other things, the Court warned that West Moberly's underlying action was not strong in law or on the evidence, and noted that the action was "inexcusably commenced" over two years after construction on Site C commenced. Further, the Court agreed with B.C. Hydro that if the Site C project was halted it would create chaos and cause irreparable harm to B.C. Hydro and Site C's many stakeholders.

Although no injunctive relief was granted, the Court did direct that the trial of West Moberly's action against the province and B.C. Hydro must be scheduled such that it would end no later than mid-2023, which corresponds to a key milestone in the Site C construction process.


In this decision, the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed a petition by two First Nations seeking to quash the province of B.C.'s approval of further exploratory drilling by Taseko Mines Limited.

The petition arose out of a complex series of events relating to Taseko's attempts to progress development of the New Prosperity mine. The area, south of Williams Lake, B.C., is also land on which the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and the Tsilhqot'in Nation hold proven Aboriginal hunting, trapping and trade rights.

Taseko had submitted a proposed plan for the mine to the provincial and federal governments for environmental assessment purposes. The federal government's assessment concluded that the project would have significant adverse environmental impacts, which would impact the Tsilhqot'in's exercise of proven Aboriginal rights, and therefore rejected Taseko's proposal. While Taseko submitted a redesigned project proposal, the province approved Taseko's exploratory permits. The Xeni Gwet'in and Tsilhqot'in challenged the province's decision on the basis that the province had breached its duty to consult and accommodate.

The Court noted the strength of the Aboriginal rights (being proven) and the extent of the potential interference with those rights. Together, this put the claim at the upper end of the spectrum of consultation and accommodation, and therefore a deep level of consultation was required. The province accepted this standard and had engaged in intensive consultation. However, the petitioners argued that the only reasonable outcomes the province could have reached at the end of consultation were to deny further exploratory drilling, or defer it until, or make it conditional upon, the federal government's approval of Taseko's redesigned project proposal.

In dismissing the petition, the Court concluded that the province's approach in approving exploratory drilling fell within the range of reasonableness. The Court reached its determination despite the outstanding federal review of Taseko's redesigned project.

In the result, Taseko's exploratory drilling was allowed to proceed, although the Court noted that there are more hurdles for Taseko to clear and further opportunities for balancing the parties' interests.

For another decision concerning this project, see the case summary for Canada (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) v. Taseko Mines Limited, 2018 BCSC 1034 on page 42 of this publication.


In this notable pre-trial decision, the B.C. Supreme Court ordered the Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN) to produce its private agreements with industry, among other documents.

The decision came in the course of BRFN's Treaty 8 infringement claim against the province. BRFN asserts that the province is in breach of its obligations under Treaty 8 due to the cumulative impacts of development in BRFN's traditional territory. This is one of the first claims to allege treaty infringement on the basis of cumulative impacts to a First Nation's entire traditional territory.

The province sought production of documents by BRFN, including industry benefits documents, such as impact benefit and revenue sharing agreements, donations, and revenue received by BRFN from companies. The province argued such documents were relevant to the litigation because they demonstrated the extent that BRFN was responsible for, or acquiesced to, industrial developments, and because they spoke to the nature of the change foreshadowed by Treaty 8, how BFRN had adapted to the change over time, and how the province had managed the change honourably.

The Court agreed these documents were material to the larger litigation and ordered their production with some exceptions. In particular, the Court declined to order disclosure of documents relating to: (i) projects that BRFN objected to but which proceeded despite the objection; (ii) BRFN's requests for, and receipt of, capacity funding from industrial proponents; and (iii) agreements between companies owned and controlled by BRFN members and industry.

When this decision was released, the trial was scheduled to commence in March 2018. Since then, BRFN and the province have twice agreed to postpone the trial in order to continue negotiations. As of the last postponement, the trial was scheduled to commence in April 2019. For more on this decision and the underlying litigation, see McCarthy Tétrault LLP's Canadian ERA Perspectives blog post entitled "First Nation ordered to produce private agreements with industry — update on Blueberry River First Nations Treaty 8 infringement proceedings."

To view the original article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions