Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867; a declaratory judgment to that effect has practical utility in resolving jurisdictional uncertainty. Powley membership criteria for s.35 do not constrain s.91(24). Declarations restating established fiduciary and consultation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 SCC 12
Parties
Appellants/respondents on Cross Appeal: Harry Daniels, Gabriel Daniels, Leah Gardner, Terry Joudrey and Congress of Aboriginal Peoples; Respondents/appellants on Cross Appeal: Her Majesty The Queen as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Attorney General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law (aboriginal Law) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered April 14, 2016
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; first declaration granted that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under s.91(24); second and third declarations denied; costs to appellants.
Legal Topics
Section 91(24) Constitution Act, 1867, Métis Status, Non Status Indians, Declaratory Relief, Fiduciary Duty, Duty to Consult
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Aboriginal Law Indigenous Peoples Law Section 91(24) Constitution Act, 1867 Métis Status Non Status Indians Declaratory Relief Fiduciary Duty +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Daniels, Gabriel Daniels, Leah Gardner, Terry Joudrey and Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

Appellants/respondents on Cross Appeal

Her Majesty The Queen as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Attorney General of Canada

Respondents/appellants on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law (aboriginal Law) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered April 14, 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867
  2. 2 Whether a declaration that they are "Indians" would have practical utility
  3. 3 Whether Powley criteria should delimit Métis for s.91(24) purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867; a declaratory judgment to that effect has practical utility in resolving jurisdictional uncertainty. Powley membership criteria for s.35 do not constrain s.91(24). Declarations restating established fiduciary and consultation duties are unnecessary and therefore denied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; first declaration granted that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under s.91(24); second and third declarations denied; costs to appellants.

Orders

  • Grant declaration that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
  • Deny declarations that the federal Crown owes a fiduciary duty to Métis and non-status Indians (as a new declaration) and that they have a collective right to be consulted and negotiated with (as a new declaration).