Canada: Consultation & Aboriginal Title – Important Lessons In Mi'kmaq Of Pei v Province Of Pei Et Al.

Last Updated: July 9 2018
Article by Thomas Isaac and Arend J.A. Hoekstra

On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island released its decision in Mi'kmaq of P.E.I. v Province of P.E.I. et al.1 (the Mill River Decision) addressing the decision of the Government of Prince Edward Island (the Province) to dispose of the Mill River Resort complex (the Resort or the Lands).

The Mill River Decision provides important direction for how governments and project proponents address the alienation of Crown lands, related Crown consultation, and the liability associated with the potential finding of Aboriginal title. The decision summarizes and clearly reiterates core elements of effective consultation, providing useful guidance for all parties participating in consultation.

Thomas Isaac, a Partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, appeared as co-counsel for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island, with assistance from Arend Hoekstra, also of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.


The Resort, owned by the Province, is a golf resort, hotel, campground and fun-park located in western Prince Edward Island, and has been operating since 1983.2 In recent years the Resort has been losing money on its golf course operations,3 and in 2012 the Province issued a Call for Expression of Interest to attract potential purchasers of the Resort.4 In advance of the Call for Expression of Interest, the Province gave notice to the Mi'kmaq of Prince Edward Island (the Mi'kmaq), who have claimed Aboriginal title to all of Prince Edward Island.5

Correspondence between 2013 and 2016 included assertions by the Mi'kmaq of Aboriginal title over all of Prince Edward Island6 and assertions of traditional use and archeological sites7 within or near the Resort. Throughout their correspondence with the Province, the Mi'kmaq "expressed that the Province required the 'consent' of the Mi'kmaq" before any conveyance of Crown land could be completed."8

In response, the Province shared information about the Resort,9 sought information from the Mi'kmaq with regard to traditional and present-day use of the Resort,10 and asked the Mi'kmaq to provide them with archaeological information that could help them evaluate the disposal of the Lands.11 The Province also asked the Mi'kmaq to specify how the transfer of the Resort would adversely impact any Aboriginal or treaty right, given that the site had been developed and used as a golf course and would continue to be used for that purpose after its sale.12

While the Mi'kmaq asserted that they had engaged in traditional activities such as camping, hunting, clay gathering and wild fruit gathering in the areas around the Resort, with further assertions that camping took place directly on the Lands, "no information or evidence supporting those claims was provided"13 other than very minimal descriptions. With regard to the Resort "area in general, and the Lands in particular, very little, other than assertions, was provided by the Mi'kmaq."14 The "Mi'kmaq did not advise of any adverse impact on its traditional uses of the land or its Aboriginal right or title as a result of the contemplated transfer of land other than by the act of conveyance itself [emphasis added]."15 Despite the Province's requests, "the Province did not receive any additional information which would tend to support the claim for title."16

On January 10, 2017, the Province approved the sale of the Resort to a private purchaser17 who intended to continue operating the Resort.18 The Mi'kmaq filed a Judicial Review on February 8, 2017, requesting that the sale be stopped.

Justice Gordon Campbell concluded that there would be little-to-no adverse impact on the rights claimed as a result of a transfer of the Resort.19 Given this minimal potential infringement, the duty to consult was, at most, at the low end of the Haida Nation20 spectrum,21  while the Province's consultation efforts were sufficient to satisfy the requirements associated with a duty at the midrange of that spectrum.22

Interestingly, the Court noted on several occasions that the duty to consult may not have actually been triggered by the sale of the Resort.23


The Mill River Decision raises two notable issues with regard to the duty to consult and Aboriginal title:

  1. Whether the disposal of Crown land subject to asserted Aboriginal title is sufficient to trigger the duty to consult; and
  2. The obligations of the parties in conducting consultation.

Issue 1: Whether Disposal of Crown Land Subject to Asserted Aboriginal Title is Sufficient to Trigger the Duty to Consult

As set out in Haida Nation, there are three necessary requirements to trigger the duty to consult. First, the Crown must have knowledge of the asserted Aboriginal or treaty right. Second, there must be contemplated "Crown conduct." Third, the contemplated Crown conduct must have the potential to adversely affect the asserted Aboriginal or treaty right.24

In the Mill River Decision, the Province had received multiple assertions of Aboriginal title from the Mi'kmaq, fulfilling the first requirement, and was contemplating the sale of the Resort, fulfilling the second requirement. he outstanding issue, which the Court explored in depth, was whether the disposal of the Resort by the Crown, to a purchaser who intended to continue operating the Resort in a similar fashion, constituted an "adverse affect."

The Court noted that simply selling the Resort would not prevent the Mi'kmaq from obtaining a future remedy. "The act of transferring the Lands does not negate the Province's obligation to the Mi'kmaq if indeed the Mi'kmaq claim of title is eventually proven."25 The Court noted that "the Government has certain powers at its disposal to address any future finding of right or title. Transferring Crown lands, providing monetary compensation, or even expropriating lands held by third parties are all options."26 As a result, to the extent that the interest of the Mi'kmaq was simply in indistinct land, alienation by the Crown would not prevent a future cure, either through financial compensation or the provision of alternative lands, if Aboriginal title were established.

The Court noted that the Resort was "less than 0.02%, or 2 one-hundredths of one percent, of the overall lands claimed [by the Mi'kmaq]."27 It also noted that "a conveyance of land does not, in and of itself, cause any physical or structural change in the land. The lands are not denuded or destroyed or altered from their current form and use by the act of such conveyance."28 The Court's comments appear to juxtapose the sale of the Resort against the circumstances in Haida Nation, where Chief Justice McLachlin stated that "The stakes are huge. [...] Forests take generations to mature ... and old-growth forests can never be replaced."29

The Court concluded that each piece of land needs to be considered independently,30 considering whether there are any new and present adverse impacts from the contemplated Crown conduct and whether the conduct will put the exercise of the potential right/claim in jeopardy in some way.31 The Court did not appear to perceive simple Crown alienation as being sufficient to incur real jeopardy.32

Issue 2: The Obligations of the Parties in Conducting Consultation

In examining the jurisprudence regarding consultation, the Court enumerated "the following principles [of consultation]:

  1. the degree of consultation required lies on a spectrum set out in Haida Nation;
  2. the Crown is bound by its honour to balance societal and Aboriginal interests;
  3. at all stages, good faith on both sides is required;
  4. there must be a meaningful process of consultation;
  5. there is no duty to reach agreement;
  6. consultation is not a one-way street;
  7. both parties must actively engage in the process;
  8. both parties must act to advance their respective rights in a prompt and conciliatory way;
  9. the consultation process does not have to be perfect;
  10. there must be a causal relationship between the contemplated conduct and the perceived adverse impact; past wrongs do not suffice;
  11. there must be an appreciable adverse effect on Aboriginal rights;
  12. mere speculative impacts will not suffice;
  13. Aboriginal complainants must not frustrate the Crown's reasonable good faith attempts;
  14. unreasonable positions must not be taken to thwart government decisions;
  15. the process does not give Aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with the land pending final proof of claim;
  16. Aboriginal consent is only required in cases of proven title."33

The Court also clarified specific consultation elements which arose between the Mi'kmaq and the Province. The Mi'kmaq had claimed it was the Province's duty to undertake research to uncover past traditional uses of the Lands by the Mi'kmaq. According to the Court, the evidentiary burden lay with the Mi'kmaq to demonstrate the strength of their claim.34 While the Mi'kmaq had insisted "they had a veto based on the fact that they had asserted title to the Lands,"35 the Court affirmed that there is no requirement that an agreement be reached in consultation.36 While the Mi'kmaq had "perceived that the consultation process should be in the form of a negotiation,"37 the Court stated that the Crown was not required to enter into negotiation in the process of consultation.38


The Mill River Decision provides useful guidance on the duty to consult generally, the duty to consult in respect of Aboriginal title, and the Crown's potential liabilities and obligations if Aboriginal title should be established.

Implication 1: Clarifying Consultation Expectations

While the Crown bears the duty to consult, the list of consultation principles set out in the Mill River Decision appears to focus on mutual obligations and the expectations of Aboriginal parties. Only two of the principles appear expressly targeted at the Crown, while at least four are addressed expressly to the Aboriginal party, and five set out shared obligations.

In setting out clear "principles of consultation," the Court emphasized the importance of consultation being a two-way process. Effective consultation requires practical, meaningful and fulsome engagement. The Court's focus on the bilateral elements of consultation and the obligations specific to Aboriginal peoples emphasizes the practical necessities of effective consultation. The process of consultation does not require negotiation39 or consent.40

Requesting information with regard to Aboriginal rights from the Mi'kmaq, sharing archaeological information and information regarding the proposed transaction, and seeking to clarify uncertainty, all contributed to an effective consultation process. As the Court notes, "the Government made reasonable efforts to inform and consult."41 "They met, and exceeded, their duty to engage in meaningful consultation and to act in good faith towards the Aboriginal people and interests which might be impacted by their contemplated land transfer."42

Implication 2: The Duty to Consult with Respect to Aboriginal Title

The Mill River Decision does not appear to empower governments to freely alienate Crown land. "Whether the act of transferring land is to be considered an adverse impact triggering the duty to consult is a determination to be made in the context of each case."43 Governments must consider whether the transfer will result in a "new and present adverse impact,"44 such as a physical change to lands which results in a future declaration of title becoming "hollow."45

Crown land disposals involving: (i) already developed properties; (ii) properties which will continue generally without alteration; or (iii) properties that may be altered in a way that may eventually be remediated and restored, are examples of circumstances less likely to trigger the duty to consult. In contrast, disposal of Crown land which could result in permanently altering its traditional uses, such as the drainage of wetlands, the introduction of heavy pollutants, and the permanent destruction of traditional resources, would be more likely to trigger the duty to consult.

Implication 3: The Crown's Potential Liabilities and Obligations if Aboriginal Title is Established

The assessment of whether the Crown has a duty to consult with regard to land does not appear to impact the Crown's potential liability if Aboriginal title is established. As the Court notes, "the act of transferring the Lands does not negate the Province's obligation to the Mi'kmaq if indeed the Mi'kmaq claim of title is eventually proven.46 By outlining the powers of the Province to address a future finding of Aboriginal title, the Court infers that governments may be required to transfer Crown lands, provide monetary compensation, or even expropriate lands held by third parties,47  though determination of the appropriate tool is likely at the Crown's descretion.

The Crown's potential liability for a claim of Aboriginal title arising with respect to a newly disposed property may not differ significantly from property long ago issued in fee simple. It appears from the Mill River Decision that the Crown could be liable for an assertion of Aboriginal title over either type of property. Practically speaking however, disposing of Crown land alienates from the Crown the most simple cure for proven Aboriginal title: the original lands.

What is unclear from the Mill River Decision is under what circumstances the Crown may justifiably infringe on Aboriginal title so as to avoid liability. Lamer C.J. of the Supreme Court stated in Delgamuukw that Aboriginal title could be infringed by such activities as "the development of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims."48 It is unclear whether such justified infringements of Aboriginal title avoid or alleviate the liability of the Crown in relation to Aboriginal title referred to in the Mill River Decision.


1 Mi'kmaq of P.E.I. v Province of P.E.I. et al. 2018 PESC 20 [Mill River]

2 Mill River, supra at para 1.

3 Mill River, supra at para 2.

4 Mill River, supra at para 3.

5 Mill River, supra at paras 112, 113.

6 Mill River, supra at paras 31, 34, 51.

7 Mill River, supra at paras 29, 34, 40, 42.

8 Mill River, supra at para 21.

9 Mill River, supra at paras 32, 35, 47.

10 Mill River, supra at paras 32, 35, 37, 41, 45.

11 Mill River, supra at paras 127, 129.

12 Mill River, supra at para 127.

13 Mill River, supra at paras 123, 124.

14 Mill River, supra at para 124.

15 Mill River, supra at para 53.

16 Mill River, supra at para 130.

17 Mill River, supra at para 55.

18 Mill River, supra at para 49.

19 Mill River, supra at para 159.

20 Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 [Haida Nation]

21 Mill River, supra at para 179.

22 Mill River, supra at para 179.

23 Mill River, supra at paras 88, 179.

24 Mill River, supra at para 74.

25 Mill River, supra at para 80.

26 Mill River, supra at para 83.

27 Mill River, supra at para 80.

28 Mill River, supra at para 82.

29 Mill River, supra at para 90.

30 Mill River, supra at para 88.

31 Mill River, supra at para 87.

32 Mill River, supra at para 82.

33 Mill River, supra at para 108.

34 Mill River, supra at para 168.

35 Mill River, supra at para 169.

36 Mill River, supra at para 177.

37 Mill River, supra at para 166.

38 Mill River, supra at para 177.

39 Mill River, supra at para 177.

40 Mill River, supra at para 167.

41 Mill River, supra at para 179.

42 Mill River, supra at para 179.

43 Mill River, supra at para 88.

44 Mill River, supra at para 87.

45 Mill River, supra at para 84.

46 Mill River, supra at para 80.

47 Mill River, supra at para 83.

48 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 at para 165.

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