- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 9,721
- 0
- 6
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Métis Nation–Saskatchewan’s (MNS) application for judicial review of the Saskatchewan government’s mining permit approvals to proceed. The court ruled that the application, started in 2021, was not an abuse of process because previous proceedings between the parties had not addressed the dispute in the present case.
This is the third court dispute between Saskatchewan and MNS, the self-governing body for Métis in Manitoba. All three disputes concern Aboriginal rights and the duty to consult. The two parties’ litigation history prompted the abuse of process allegation from the Saskatchewan government.
The Saskatchewan government argued that two prior ongoing proceedings from 1994 and 2020 dealt with the same legal issue—the duty to consult. The government’s position was that duplicative proceedings would “waste resources, risk inconsistent results, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
Justice Rowe, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the government’s arguments. He found that the 1994 action, which has been on hold, “is not dispositive” of the issue in the current case. He also determined that while the 2020 and 2021 proceedings do have clear overlap, they each raise different issues about the government’s duty to consult and as such, were not duplicative.
Prior to this 2021 proceeding, MNS asserted Aboriginal title and rights in 1994 and 2020 against the Saskatchewan government. The 1994 dispute was stayed in 2005 due to MNS’s failure to produce court-ordered documents. The 2020 dispute is ongoing with a decision pending. All three deal with, among other things, the Saskatchewan government’s duty to consult with the MNS.
In Canada, the duty to consult is an obligation placed on federal and provincial governments. It requires the Crown to consult with Indigenous groups when the Crown is contemplating conduct that may adversely affect the potential existing Aboriginal rights or titles that the government is aware of. In this case, the conduct in question is the approval of mining permits.
This duty is rooted in the honor of the Crown, elaborated in the landmark case, Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) which reiterated that the government must act honorably in all its dealings with Indigenous peoples including good faith attempts at addressing Indigenous concerns through consultation.
Additionally, Canada ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law in 2021. This requires Canadian governments to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with UNDRIP.” The ratifying legislation also affirmed the government’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.
The post Canada top court allows Métis challenge of Saskatchewan mining permits to proceed appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
This is the third court dispute between Saskatchewan and MNS, the self-governing body for Métis in Manitoba. All three disputes concern Aboriginal rights and the duty to consult. The two parties’ litigation history prompted the abuse of process allegation from the Saskatchewan government.
The Saskatchewan government argued that two prior ongoing proceedings from 1994 and 2020 dealt with the same legal issue—the duty to consult. The government’s position was that duplicative proceedings would “waste resources, risk inconsistent results, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
Justice Rowe, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the government’s arguments. He found that the 1994 action, which has been on hold, “is not dispositive” of the issue in the current case. He also determined that while the 2020 and 2021 proceedings do have clear overlap, they each raise different issues about the government’s duty to consult and as such, were not duplicative.
Prior to this 2021 proceeding, MNS asserted Aboriginal title and rights in 1994 and 2020 against the Saskatchewan government. The 1994 dispute was stayed in 2005 due to MNS’s failure to produce court-ordered documents. The 2020 dispute is ongoing with a decision pending. All three deal with, among other things, the Saskatchewan government’s duty to consult with the MNS.
In Canada, the duty to consult is an obligation placed on federal and provincial governments. It requires the Crown to consult with Indigenous groups when the Crown is contemplating conduct that may adversely affect the potential existing Aboriginal rights or titles that the government is aware of. In this case, the conduct in question is the approval of mining permits.
This duty is rooted in the honor of the Crown, elaborated in the landmark case, Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) which reiterated that the government must act honorably in all its dealings with Indigenous peoples including good faith attempts at addressing Indigenous concerns through consultation.
Additionally, Canada ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law in 2021. This requires Canadian governments to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with UNDRIP.” The ratifying legislation also affirmed the government’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.
The post Canada top court allows Métis challenge of Saskatchewan mining permits to proceed appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.