Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Parties

The Plaintiffs in the case were Harry Daniels, a Métis activist from Saskatchewan, 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. The Defendants were Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and the Attorney General of Canada.

Arguments

The plaintiffs asked the court to declare:

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 North-Western Territory, 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 recognize these groups, that they have been discriminated against.

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. They claimed that issuing any declaration requested by the plaintiffs would only lead to more litigation.

Opinion

The Federal Court agreed to the first declaration, while dismissing the other two. It determined that such a declaration was along the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People 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 the fact that Métis had been recognized as Indians under the Secretary of State Act, 1868. He agreed that the definition of "Indian" in the Indian Act was narrower with the one found in s 91(24).

Appeals

On 6 February 2013, the Government of Canada appealed the ruling. The appeal was heard on 29–30 October 2013 by the Federal Court of Appeal (Canada), with the court upholding the original decision, although excluding non-status Indians from its scope. The Supreme Court of Canada heard a subsequent appeal on 8 October 2015, and subsequently restored the original trial judge's ruling on 14 April 2016.

At the Supreme Court

In a unanimous decision, the SCC restored the trial judge's declaration on the first issue, as it settled a "live controversy." It agreed, however, that there was no "practical utility" in issuing the other declarations, as those questions "would be a restatement of the existing law." It did so because:

The fact that federal jurisdiction exists in the matter does not necessarily invalidate any provincial legislation, as the Court had held in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta that it "favour[s], where possible, the ordinary operation of statutes enacted by both levels of government."

Impact

The SCC's characterization of Métis as being equivalent to "Métis-as-mixed" appeared to represent a reversal of its ruling in Powley. This may lead to the recognition of 200,000 recognized as Métis, a further 200,000 who identify themselves as such, as well as 200,000 Indians who live off-reserve. It might also be viewed as an incentive for Indians to move off-reserve, in order to earn higher incomes, and thus encouraging a brain drain that could undermine the economic viability of the reserves.