Daniels v Canada

Daniels v Canada, [2013] F.C.R. 6 is a case of the Federal Court of Canada. It held that the Métis people and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.^[1]

Background

Parties

The Plaintiffs in the case were Harry Daniels,^[2] a Métis activist, who died before the case was heard; his son Gabriel; Leah Gardner, a non-status Indian from Ontario; Terry Joudrey, a non-status Indian from Nova Scotia; and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.^[3] The Defendants were Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and the Attorney General of Canada.^[4]

Arguments

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare:^[5]

1. that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" as the term is used in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867,
2. that the Queen owes a fiduciary duty to them as such,
3. and that they have the right to be consulted by the federal government on a collective basis, respecting their rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal people.

This was based on the facts that the Métis had been considered Aboriginals in Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories, that non-status Indians were those descended from Indians that the Indian Act did not apply to, and that because of the government's refusal to recognized these groups, that they have been discriminated against.^[6]

The Defendants argued that there were insufficient facts for a declaration to be issued, that Métis had never been considered Indians, that there was not a group known as "non-status Indians", and denied allegations of discrimination.^[7] They claimed that issuing any declaration requested by the Plaintiffs would only lead to more litigation.^[8]

Opinion

The Federal Court agreed to the first declaration, while dismissing the other two.^[9] It determined that such a declaration was along the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People^[10] It found that the overarching purposes of the Constitution Act, 1867 were settlement, expansion and development of the Dominion; that building a transcontinental railroad was integral to these purposes, that section 91:24 of the Constitution Act, 1867—the power over 'Indians'—was related to these purposes, that by s. 91:24 the Framers of the Constitution Act, 1867 intended to give themselves adequate power to deal with any and all situations involving indigenous people that could frustrate these purposes and accordingly the power over "Indians" at s. 91:24 was large enough to deal with all aboriginal people, including the Métis of the West. The court found support for that interpretation in that fact that Métis had been recognized as Indians under the 1868 Secretary of State Act.^[11] He agreed that the definition of "Indian" in the Indian Act was narrower with the one found in s 91(24).^[12]

Aftermath

On February 6, 2013, the Government of Canada appealed the ruling.^[13] The appeal was heard on October 29–30, 2013 by the Federal Court of Appeal (Canada), with the court upholding the original decision.^[14] The Supreme Court of Canada heard a subsequent appeal on October 08 2015.^[15]

References

1. ↑ Daniels, para. 619
2. ↑ http://www.abo-peoples.org/harry-daniels/
3. ↑ Daniels, paras. 30, 34, 37, and 40
4. ↑ Daniels, paras. 38 and 39
5. ↑ Daniels, para. 3
6. ↑ Daniels, para. 4
7. ↑ Daniels, para. 5
8. ↑ Daniels, para. 53
9. ↑ Daniels, paras. 20 and 619
10. ↑ Daniels, para. 59
11. ↑ Daniels, paras. 362-364
12. ↑ Daniels, para. 551
13. ↑ "Feds to appeal landmark ruling on Metis and non-status Indians". Toronto Sun. QMI Agency. February 6, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2013. 
14. ↑ Métis are within federal jurisdiction.
15. ↑ Harry Daniels, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, et al.

Canadian Aboriginal law Politics, law and legislation Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada The Canadian Crown and Aboriginal peoples Canadian Indian residential school system High Arctic relocation Fred Quilt inquiry Ipperwash Crisis Aboriginal law Royal Proclamation of 1763 Constitution Act, 1867 Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 Douglas Treaties 1969 White Paper Kelowna Accord Numbered Treaties Indian Act Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples First Nations treaties in British Columbia Indian Health Transfer Policy Case law Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell R. v. Badger Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) Daniels v. Canada Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada Kruger and al. v. The Queen R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard R. v. Marshall Mitchell v. M.N.R. Paul v. British Columbia Paulette Caveat Powley ruling R. v. Drybones R. v. Gladstone R. v. Gonzales R. v. Guerin R. v. Jim R. v. Pamajewon R. v. Sparrow Re Eskimos St. Catherines Milling v. The Queen R. v. Van der Peet Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia International rights & laws Definitions and identity of indigenous peoples Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Indigenous intellectual property See also Index of Aboriginal Canadian-related articles

Métis people Organizations Congress of Aboriginal Peoples(Canada-wide) Métis National Council (Canada-wide) British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Vancouver Northwest Territories History Fur Trade in North America Battle of Seven Oaks (1816) The National Committee of the Métis (est. 1864) Red River Rebellion (1869-1870) North-West Rebellion (1885) Southbranch Settlement in Alberta Powley ruling (2003) Daniels ruling (2013) Society in Canada in the United States Anglo-Métis People Métis Population Betterment Act List of settlements in Alberta Metis Child and Family Services Society Gabriel Dumont Institute Culture Bungi Creole Chinook Jargon Hivernants Métis French Michif language Métis flag Métis fiddle Métis buffalo hunt Similar peoples: Inuit-Metis