Canada: The Need For Forthright Consultation: First Nation Of Nacho Nyak Dun

Last Updated: December 15 2017
Article by Thomas Isaac and Arend J.A. Hoekstra

On December 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Nacho Nyak Dun,1 addressing the Yukon Government's decision to disregard the process set out in modern land settlement agreements and instead approve its own land use plan for non-settlement lands in the Peel Watershed.  While the decision addresses specific elements of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement,2 the Court also highlights the importance of clear and forthright communication of the Crown's interests and intentions during consultation.


In 1993, the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement (the Agreement) was entered into between Canada, the Yukon Government, and Yukon First Nations, and established a collaborative regional land use planning process for Yukon Territory.3  The Agreement was the product of decades of negotiations between well-resourced and sophisticated parties and was incorporated into modern Yukon treaties.4

Process for Developing Land Use Plans

The Agreement includes a process for developing land use plans.  The Court noted that in signing onto the Agreement and accompanying treaties, First Nations accepted comparatively smaller settlement areas in exchange for important rights in both settlement and non-settlement lands, and particularly in their traditional territories.5

Under the Agreement, land use plans are developed by an independent Commission, with members nominated by the Yukon Government and the affected Yukon First Nations.  Land use plans are intended to apply to settlement and non-settlement lands and to encourage a consistent approach to resource development.6  The development of a land use plan under the Agreement includes a four-part process that applies to the Yukon Government:

  1. The independent Commission prepares and provides a recommended regional land use plan to the Yukon Government and the affected First Nations.
  2. After consultation with First Nations, the Yukon Government considers the recommended regional plan.  If the Yukon Government rejects or proposes to amend the recommendations, the Yukon Government must send written reasons, and proposed modifications if applicable, to the Commission.
  3. The Commission considers the written reasons and proposed modifications, if any, and makes a final recommendation for the regional land use plan. 
  4. After consultation with First Nations, the Yukon Government may approve, reject, or modify the proposed land use plan for non-settlement lands.

Under the Agreement, the affected First Nations must follow a similar process before rejecting, modifying, or adopting a land use plan for settlement lands.

Agreed Approach

In 2004, by voluntary agreement, the Yukon Government and the affected First Nations agreed to establish a regional Commission to develop a regional land use plan for the Peel Watershed.  In 2009, the Commission released its recommended plan,7 and in 2010 and again in 2011, the Yukon Government and the affected First Nations entered into joint letters of understanding to establish a coordinated approach to consultation and to seek to achieve consensus on the plan.8

Divergence of Yukon Government

Following the initial consultation effort, the Yukon Government provided the Commission with two vague statements expressing its goal of increasing options for resource access and development, including a request that the Commission "re-examine conservation values, non-consumptive resource use and resource development to achieve a more balanced plan."9  In July 2011, after determining that the Yukon Government's comments were simply expressions of general desires, and did not qualify as "proposed modifications," the Commission released its Final Recommended Plan,10 which protected 80% of the region while opening 20% for mineral exploration.11

Following the release of the Final Recommended Plan, and despite the protests of affected First Nations, the Yukon Government proposed to substantially modify the land use plan, and engaged in an independent consultation initiative rather than follow the previously agreed upon collaborative approach.12

In 2014, the Yukon Government approved its land use plan for non-settlement land in the Peel Watershed.13  The plan opened up 71% of the Peel Watershed to mineral exploration.14


The primary issue in Nacho Nyak Dun is whether the Yukon Government acted lawfully, and in accordance with the Agreement.  More relevant for those outside of Yukon Territory however, is the Court's focus on the importance of forthright communication during consultation efforts between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. 

Issue 1: Interpreting Modern Treaties

Consistent with the Court's previous review of the Yukon Territory's modern treaties in Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation,15 the Court emphasizes that modern treaties have been meticulously negotiated by well-resourced parties, and that in reviewing actions under modern treaties, the reviewing court must pay close attention to their terms.16

The Court notes that the power to modify or reject a land use plan recommendation under the Agreement is subject to prior consultation,17 and requires the earlier provision of written reasons to the Commission in order to enable them to review and potentially amend their recommendations.18  The process must also meet the clear objective of ensuring that First Nations can meaningfully participate in land use management in their traditional territories.19

The Yukon Government's actions were inconsistent with the Agreement.  First, the Yukon Government did not provide meaningful feedback to the Commission for their review and instead provided "bald expressions of preference" which were not sufficiently detailed to permit the Commission to respond in a meaningful way.20  Not only did this breach the requirements of the Agreement, it removed the opportunity for the Commission to provide its expert response.21  Second, by not clearly proposing specific modifications after the initial report of the Commission, affected First Nations missed an opportunity to provide meaningful feedback, early on, to the proposed modifications.22  Third, while the Yukon Government was able to make modifications pursuant to the Agreement, those modifications could not be so significant as to effectively reject the recommendations, as was seen in this case.  Finally, when seeking to depart from positions it has taken in the past, the Crown must act in good faith and in accordance with the honour of the Crown.23  By failing to comply with the processes of the Agreement, failing to provide the Commission and First Nations with sufficient opportunity to provide feedback, and abandoning the approach to joint review and consultation that was previously agreed upon, the Court concluded that the conduct of the Yukon Government was not becoming of the honour of the Crown.24

Issue 2: The Importance of Forthright Communication

In conducting consultation, governments must be flexible and forthright in their approach.  In Mikisew Cree25 the Court noted that real consultation requires more than just an opportunity for Indigenous communities to "blow off steam before the Minister proceeds to do what she intended to do all along."26  For some governments, this has led to overly general consultation efforts where everything is left 'on the table.'  While the approach appears, at least superficially, to promote reconciliation, it can also undermine real consultation and constrain the Crown's later use of discretionary powers.

Nacho Nyak Dun highlights the risks and deficiencies of this approach.  By not engaging in a forthright manner and fully expressing its preferences early on, while (it appears) hoping the process would resolve itself favourably without the Crown needing to display its bias towards a particular outcome, Yukon Government undermined the effectiveness of its consultation effort.The importance of clearly communicating the Crown's goals was highlighted by the Court when it concluded that "Yukon must bear the consequences of its failure to diligently advance its interests and exercise its right [Emphasis added]."27 28

Yukon Government's breach of the Agreement was not necessary.  Had it clearly stated its objections following receipt of the draft recommendations of the Commission, Yukon could have engaged in meaningful consultation, and could have exercised its discretionary authority under the Agreement in good faith while upholding the honour of the Crown.  Instead, by vaguely suggesting its objectives, possibly with the hope of appearing open and flexible to the process and interests of the affected First Nations, the Yukon Government undermined effective consultation and forfeited a substantial portion of the discretionary authority provided under the Agreement.


Consultation does not require governments to start from a blank sheet.  It does not require all options to be on the table, and it does not require governments to act as independent arbitrators, disassociated from any particular public interest.  What consultation, particularly at the deepest levels, does require is an avenue for Indigenous groups to make submissions, be able to formally participate in the decision-making process, and for their concerns to be considered and addressed.29  Without clearly stating the goals and interests of the Crown, Indigenous peoples are unable to fully and meaningfully understand the potential impact to their interests and effectively disclose their interests to the Crown.

Much effort has been made recently to encourage cooperation between Crown governments and Indigenous communities.  The 10 Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship with Indigenous Peoples, in particular, highlights the importance of including Indigenous self-governments in a system of cooperative federalism.30  While encouraging an effective, respectful approach to Indigenous/Crown relationships is a worthwhile goal, the processes used to achieve the objective should be examined critically.

Whether in collaborative processes or in consultation generally, the Crown and Indigenous peoples do not come to the table as equals.  While holding substantial resources and legislative powers, the Crown is materially constrained by the honour of the Crown.  The honour of the Crown reflects the constrained powers of the Crown when dealing with Indigenous interests, while also reflecting the Crown's larger responsibility of balancing competing societal interests with Aboriginal and treaty rights.31  In contrast, effective consultation requires Indigenous groups to set out and advance their interests.32  There is no obligation for Indigenous groups to consider other parties or restrain the assertion or exercise of their rights.

For cooperative federalism to be effective, Crown governments must diligently communicate and advance the interests of those parties not represented at the table.  Such interests include economic interest, fiscal interests, community interests, and the interests of non-participating Indigenous peoples.  Pretending to come to the table unencumbered by interests and preferences undermines effective consultation, disadvantages the process, and undermines the honour of the Crown.

The honour of the Crown does not require self censorship.  In processes set out in modern treaties, it requires the Crown to "diligently advance its interests."33  In consultation efforts, it requires the Crown to listen to and consider the concerns of Indigenous peoples and, where warranted, to provide the form of accommodation which it deems appropriate, having consideration to the competing interests.34  To be effective, cooperative federalism and reconciliation generally does not require parties to blindly agree or pay lip service.  Rather, it requires all parties to diligently advance their interests within the context of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.35   


1 First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v. Yukon, 2017 SCC 58 [Nacho Nyak Dun].

2 Canada, Umbrella Final Agreement Between the Government of Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians and the Government of the Yukon (Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 1993) [Agreement].

3 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 2.

4 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 7.

5 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 46.

6 Agreement, supra note 2 at paras and

7 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 17.

8 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 19.

9 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 21.

10 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 23.

11 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 53.

12 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at paras 23-24.

13 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 25.

14 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 53.

15 Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53 [Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation].

16 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 36.

17 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 40.

18 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 43.

19 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 47.

20 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 54.

21 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 55.

22 Ibid.

23 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 52.

24 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 57.

25 Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69 [Mikisew Cree].

26 Mikisew Cree, supra note 25 at para 54.

27 Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1 at para 61.

28 Throughout Nacho Nyak Dun, supra note 1, the Court stressed that it has a limited role when reviewing activities under a modern treaty.  Rather than reviewing the overall conduct of the parties, the Court will limit its focus to whether a specific decision is legal, and otherwise generally leave space for the parties to govern together and work out their differences.  There are two consequences of greater forbearance.  First, governments are afforded greater deference in their overall conduct, so long as they are acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement and their actions are constitutionally compliant.  The second consequence is that governments must take advantage of those rights provided under the treaties rather than rely on an overall process. 

29 Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2017 SCC 41 [Chippewas] at paras 47 & 63.

30 Canada, Department of Justice, Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples, (Canada, 2017).

31 Chippewas, supra note 29 at para 59.

32 Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54 [Ktunaxa Nation] at para 79.

33 Ibid.

34 In Ktunaxa Nation, supra note 32 at para 79, the Court stresses that the Crown's ultimate obligation when consulting and contemplating accommodation is that it act honourably.  "Section 35 guarantees a process, not a particular result."

35 Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Constitution Act, 1982].

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Thomas Isaac
Arend J.A. Hoekstra
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions