Canada: First Nation Of Nacho Nyak Dun V. Yukon: SCC Addresses The Role Of Courts In Resolving Modern Treaty Disputes

On December 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun v. Yukon,[i] concerning a contested land use planning decision of the Yukon Government under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. The case is one of only a few by the SCC to substantively address modern treaties,[ii] and thus provides helpful commentary with respect to the principles governing the interpretation of modern treaties, the role of the courts in resolving modern treaty disputes, and the scope of the appropriate remedy where government has breached its treaty obligations.


Following decades of negotiation, in 1990 the Yukon and federal governments and 14 Yukon First Nations finalized the Umbrella Final Agreement, which set the groundwork for concluding modern treaties in the Yukon and established a collaborative land use planning process. This led to several modern land claims agreements, including Final Agreements with the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in, and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (as well as a Yukon Transboundary Agreement executed by the Gwich'in Tribal Council on behalf of the Tetlit Gwich'in) (the Final Agreements). These agreements recognized the traditional territories of the affected First Nations and their right to participate in the management of public resources in the Peel Watershed in northern Yukon. The Peel Watershed is one of the largest intact wilderness watersheds in North America.

Yukon and the affected First Nations commenced the process set out in the Final Agreements to develop a regional land use plan for the Peel Watershed. In 2004, the parties agreed to the establishment of an independent Peel Watershed Planning Commission (Commission) to develop the land use plan. Following intensive consultation, the Commission submitted a Recommended Plan to Yukon and the First Nations in 2009.

After completing a first round of consultation with the affected First Nations, Yukon was required under the Final Agreements to approve, reject, or propose modifications to the Recommended Plan. Yukon's written response to the Commission included certain statements expressing interest in increasing options for access and development. The Commission determined that those comments were not sufficiently detailed to constituted "proposed modifications", but were merely expressions of general desires. Accordingly, these points were not considered in the development of the Commission's Final Recommendation Plan, released in 2011.

In 2012, Yukon announced it would "modify" the Final Recommended Plan. Following a second round of consultation (which, contrary to a letter of understanding signed by Yukon, was carried out without the coordinated involvement of the First Nations), Yukon approved its own revised land use plan. The plan made substantial changes to the Commission's Final Recommended Plan, allowing for increased development and access to the region. The First Nations objected to Yukon's approval of its plan, considering it inconsistent with the process set out in the Final Agreements.

Decisions Below

The trial judge held that Yukon did not act in conformity with the process set out in the Final Agreements, and with inadequate consultation, had invalidly modified the Final Recommended Plan. The judge ordered Yukon to re-conduct its second consultation and to then either approve or modify the Final Recommended Plan based on the modifications it had previously proposed.

The Court of Appeal allowed Yukon's appeal in part. It set aside the trial judge's order returning the parties to the second round of consultation, instead directing the parties to return to the earlier first stage of consultation after finding that Yukon had failed to properly exercise its right to propose modifications to the Commission's Recommended Plan at that earlier stage.

SCC Decision

On appeal, the First Nations submitted that Yukon's authority to "modify" the Final Recommended Plan under the Final Agreement was restricted to modifications that it had previously proposed to the Recommended Plan. Accordingly, the First Nations argued that the matter should be returned to the second stage of consultation, as the trial judge had ordered.

Yukon conceded that it had breached the Final Agreements, but agreed with the Court of Appeal that the appropriate remedy was to return the parties to the first stage of consultation. This approach would (conveniently) allow Yukon to propose additional modifications to the Recommended Plan that it had not previously raised.

The SCC held that Yukon's extensive changes to the Final Recommended Plan did not respect the process set out in the Final Agreements and quashed Yukon's approval of the plan. Overturning the Court of Appeal's decision, the SCC sent the parties back to the second round of consultation. The SCC found it would be inappropriate to afford Yukon a second chance at earlier consultation, noting that it had failed to diligently advance its interests and exercise its rights in the initial round of consultation and must bear the consequences of that failure.

The appropriate role of the courts in resolving modern treaty disputes includes exercising judicial restraint

Emphasizing that modern treaties are intended to renew the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown to one of equal partnership, the SCC stated that in the context of resolving modern treaty disputes, courts should generally "leave space for the parties to govern together and work out their differences", and that "reconciliation often demands judicial forbearance".[iii]

However, the SCC acknowledged that modern treaties enshrine constitutional rights that courts must safeguard, and that such judicial restraint "should not come at the expense of adequate scrutiny of Crown conduct to ensure constitutional compliance."[iv]

Yukon's changes to the plan were not authorized by the Final Agreements

The SCC agreed with the courts below that Yukon's changes to the Final Recommended Plan did not respect the process set out in the Final Agreements, and that Yukon's adoption of its plan was therefore invalid. The SCC interpreted the word "modify" as permitting Yukon to make changes to the Final Recommended Plan without altering its fundamental nature; it did not grant Yukon a right to modify the plan so significantly as to effectively reject it. The right to modify was also subject to the obligation to conduct prior consultation as described in the Final Agreements. Consultation was a key component of the approval process. In addition, the objectives of the land use plan approval process­ — including ensuring meaningful participation on the part of First Nations in land use management in their traditional territories, and fostering a "positive, mutually respectful, and long-term relationship between the parties to the Final Agreements"[v] — further limited the scope of permitted modifications. The SCC held that Yukon did not enjoy an unconstrained right to make "modifications" that effectively rewrote the plan at the end of the process, as such a right would render the process meaningless. Any modifications had to be "minor or partial changes" made in good faith that were consistent with constitutional principles such as the honour of the Crown.[vi]

In discussing the principles governing the interpretation of modern treaties, the SCC noted that because modern treaties are "meticulously negotiated by well-resourced parties", courts must pay close attention to their terms.[vii] Further, specific terms must be read "in light of the treaty text as a whole and the treaty's objectives".[viii] The SCC stated that reconciliation is found in, among other things, "the respectful fulfillment of a modern treaty's terms",[ix] and that the honour of the Crown continues to be a central doctrine in this context.

The appropriate remedy was to return the parties to the second round of consultation, where the breach at issue occurred

The SCC quashed Yukon's approval of its plan. The remaining question was whether the parties should be returned to the first round of consultation, as the Court of Appeal had ordered, or instead to the second round of consultation, as the trial judge had ordered.

The SCC found that the Court of Appeal had improperly inserted itself into the treaty relationship "by assessing the adequacy of Yukon's conduct at the [earlier] stage of the land use plan approval process, even though the First Nations did not seek to have the approval quashed on that basis".[x] The SCC commented:

In my view, the Court of Appeal's approach is inconsistent with the appropriate role of courts in a judicial review involving a modern treaty dispute. The court's role is not to assess the adequacy of each party's compliance at each stage of a modern treaty process. Rather, it is to determine whether the challenged decision was legal, and to quash it if it is not. Close judicial management of the implementation of modern treaties may undermine the meaningful dialogue and long-term relationship that these treaties are designed to foster. Judicial restraint leaves space for the parties to work out their understanding of a process — quite literally, to reconcile — without the court's management of that process beyond what is necessary to resolve the specific dispute.[xi]

The SCC also observed that the effect of the Court of Appeal's decision was to give Yukon another opportunity to propose access and development modifications to the Recommended Plan. The SCC found it would be inappropriate to afford Yukon this second chance, noting that it had failed to diligently advance its interests and exercise its rights in the first round of consultation, and that it must bear the consequences of that failure.

The SCC concluded that the appropriate remedy was to quash Yukon's approval of its plan and return the parties to the second round of consultation, meaning that Yukon would not have a second opportunity to propose access and development modifications to the Recommended Plan.

The Takeaways

First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun confirms that while "judicial restraint" are the buzzwords when it comes to the appropriate approach of the courts in resolving modern treaty disputes, the courts continue to play an important role in safeguarding the constitutional rights enshrined in modern treaties.

The decision provides a reminder to federal, provincial, and territorial governments that treaties are constitutionally protected documents to which the standards of the honour of the Crown apply, and of the importance of respecting the processes set out in modern treaties with First Nations – should government fail to do so, it must bear the consequences.


[i] 2017 SCC 58 (Nacho Nyak Dun).

[ii] See also Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53.

[iii] Nacho Nyak Dun, at para. 33.

[iv] Ibid. at para. 34.

[v] Ibid. at para. 47.

[vi] Ibid. at para. 52.

[vii] Ibid. at para. 36, citing Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses, 2010 SCC 17, at para. 7.

[viii] Nacho Nyak Dun, at para. 37 [emphasis in original].

[ix] Ibid. at para. 38.

[x] Ibid. at para. 60.

[xi] Ibid. at para. 60.

To view the full article, please click here

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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