On February 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") unanimously ruled in Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan1 that the pleadings of Métis Nation – Saskatchewan ("MNS") did not amount to an abuse of process, despite similar issues being raised in two prior actions against the Government of Saskatchewan (the "Provincial Government").
In its decision, the SCC examined the abuse of process doctrine in the context of a multiplicity of proceedings, finding that while overlapping legal issues were present between the proceedings, this did not amount to an abuse of process. The Court emphasized the importance of recognizing the "unique context of litigation to vindicate Aboriginal rights" and the use of Court procedures that "facilitate, not impede, the just resolution of Aboriginal claims."2
Background and Procedural History
MNS is the government of the Métis Nation in the Province of Saskatchewan. For many years, the Métis people have asserted that they have Aboriginal title over lands in northwestern Saskatchewan and rights to hunt, fish and trap for commercial purposes. The Provincial Government has consistently denied that these rights exist.
In March 2021, the Provincial Government notified MNS that it had received three permit applications from NexGen Ltd. ("NextGen") for uranium exploration (the "Permits")3. The Province advised MNS that it would consult it on Aboriginal rights to fish, trap, and hunt, but not with respect to Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights4. The Provincial Government issued the Permits in July 20215.
MNS applied for judicial review of the decision to issue the Permits6. Among other things, MNS sought a declaration that the Provincial Government breached its duty to consult by failing to consult MNS about the impact of the Permits with respect to Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights (the "2021 Application")7.
The Provincial Government applied to strike portions of the pleadings referring to claims regarding Aboriginal title or commercial harvesting rights, based on abuse of process. The Provincial Government argued that many of the same issues raised in the 2021 Application were also raised in the two earlier actions8:
- In the first action, MNS sought declarations of Aboriginal title and rights to lands in northern Saskatchewan (the "1994 Action")9. The 1994 Action was stayed in 2005 due to MNS's failure to comply with a court order requiring it to disclose certain documents related to the claim10. MNS had not complied with the court order and had not applied to lift the stay11. The Province had taken no steps to have the action declared abandoned12.
- In the second action, MNS sought to have a Provincial Government consultation policy declared invalid (the "2020 Action"). The policy stated that the Province did not recognize Aboriginal title or commercial harvesting rights, and that the Provincial Government would not consult with First Nations or Métis regarding these matters13. MNS sought declarations that, among other things, the Crown's duty to consult includes Métis claims to Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights14. In 2023, MNS applied for a summary determination to have the policy declared prima facie invalid. The decision is still pending15.
The chambers judge granted the Provincial Government's application16. The Court of Appeal allowed MNS's appeal and reinstated the struck paragraphs from MNS's pleadings17.
Abuse of Process and Multiplicity of Proceedings
The SCC reviewed the doctrine of abuse of process, noting that the doctrine can be engaged in the context of a multiplicity of proceedings that engage the same issues18. The SCC considered that it is prima facie vexatious to bring two actions when one would suffice19. The SCC canvassed examples where a multiplicity of proceedings has amounted to an abuse of process, including where plaintiffs initiated multiple actions claiming Aboriginal and treaty rights over the same land and natural resources20.
However, the SCC also noted that multiple proceedings involving the same parties or legal issues do not inherently indicate an abuse of process21. The SCC emphasized that "the analysis needs to focus on whether allowing the litigation to proceed would violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice"22.
The 2021 Application Did Not Give Rise to an Abuse of Process
The SCC began by identifying the purpose and remedies sought in each of the three legal proceedings23:
- The 1994 Action set out MNS's claims for, and sought declarations of, Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights over land in northwestern Saskatchewan.
- The 2020 Action's purpose was to delineate the scope of the Provincial Government's duty to consult in a general sense, and sought declarations with respect to the consultation policy.
- The 2021 Action sought judicial review of the decision to grant the Permits, including a declaration that the Provincial Government has a duty to consult regarding the impact of the Permits on the Métis claim of Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights.
The Court noted that the status of the stayed 1994 Action was not dispositive of the issue, as the duty to consult operates pending a final determination of claims24. It held there was no basis for finding an abuse of process with respect to the 1994 Action25.
The 2020 Action addressed the general duty to consult, while the 2021 Application focused on whether this duty was fulfilled before issuing the Permits26. The Court deemed it a misuse of the abuse of process doctrine to "immunize" the Provincial Government's actions from judicial review27. The SCC highlighted that the 2021 Application would likely be informed by the pending 2020 Action, and that risks of potential inconsistencies could be managed through case management (i.e., adjourning the 2021 Application until the 2020 Action was decided)28. The SCC concluded there was no basis for finding an abuse of process with respect to the 2020 Action29.
The SCC emphasized the importance of considering the unique context of litigation aimed at vindicating Aboriginal rights when determining the existence of an abuse of process. The SCC further noted that court procedures should facilitate, not hinder, the just resolution of Aboriginal claims30.
Implications
Although this decision pertains to an appeal on a motion to strike pleadings and the SCC makes no findings regarding the merits of MNS's claimed Aboriginal title and rights, or whether the Provincial Government owed or breached the duty to consult, it remains significant for MNS. Due to the long and challenging journey the Métis have faced in proving their rights or having those rights recognized through negotiations, Métis litigants are particularly vulnerable to the doctrine of abuse of process. By confirming that MNS will have its day in court to have its claims heard, the SCC has clearly signaled that courts must be sensitive to the unique context of Aboriginal rights litigation when deciding whether to refuse to hear a matter on its merits on the basis of the doctrine of abuse of process.
Footnotes
1 2025 SCC 4.
2 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 62.
3 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at paras 15-16.
4 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 16.
5 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 15.
6 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 17.
7 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at paras 2 and 18.
8 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at paras 2 and 19.
9 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 7.
10 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 8.
11 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 47.
12 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 48.
13 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 12.
14 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 13.
15 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 14.
16 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at paras 21-22.
17 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 23.
18 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 38.
19 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 38.
20 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 38, citing Dixon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ABQB 565.
21 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 39.
22 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 40.
23 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at paras 43-46.
24 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 50.
25 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 55.
26 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 58.
27 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 59.
28 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 60.
29 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 61.
30 Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 62.
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.
