Canada: Supreme Court Decides That Duty To Consult Does Not Apply To Law-Making Process: Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada

Last Updated: November 27 2018
Article by Julie Abouchar and Raeya Jackiw

 On October 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") released its decision in Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Governor General in Council) ("Mikisew Cree").1 A majority of the Court held that the duty to consult is not triggered by the development of legislation.

The SCC offered four competing opinions about the scope of the duty to consult and whether the honour of the Crown applies to the Legislature. The divided decision indicates that this may be more of a policy than a legal question. The Court recognises that its analysis would not apply where existing Land Claim Agreements require consultation in relation to proposed legislation.2

Facts

In 2012 Parliament tabled two bills (Bill C-38 and C-45, collectively, the "Omnibus Bills").3 The Omnibus Bills proposed sweeping changes to federal environmental laws.4

Chief Courtoreille and the Mikisew Cree First Nation (collectively, the "Mikisew Cree") alleged that the Omnibus Bills adversely affected their rights to hunt, trap and fish under Treaty 8.5 The Mikisew Cree applied to the Federal Court seeking, among other things, a declaration that the federal Ministers have a duty to consult with the Mikisew Cree regarding the development and introduction of the Omnibus Bills.6

Lower Court Decisions

The Federal Court found that the law-making process triggers the duty to consult and that the Omnibus Bills adversely affected the Mikisew Cree's established Treaty rights.7 The Federal Court issued a declaration that the Mikisew Cree were entitled to consultation.8

The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed, and held that the Federal Courts Act9 barred the Federal Court from judicially reviewing legislative action.10 The Federal Court of Appeal also found that requiring consultation during the law-making process would "be impractical" and would interfere with "Parliament's law making capacity."11

The Mikisew Cree appealed to the SCC and argued that the:

  1. Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the law-making process, and 
  2. development and introduction of the Omnibus Bills triggered the duty to consult.

See our earlier article on the Mikisew Cree's application here.

The Mikisew Cree's application raised important questions for the SCC. Does the honour of the Crown apply to the Legislature? Do governments trigger the duty to consult when they develop policy? And what remedies can or should Courts grant if governments develop legislation that could impact Indigenous rights?

The Supreme Court's Decision

The SCC

  1. unanimously found that the Federal Courts Act does not permit judicial review of 1parliamentary activities, including the development of legislation,12 and dismissed the Mikisew Cree's application,13 and
  2. split on the issue of whether the duty to consult is triggered where the Crown develops, 2passes or enacts legislation that may adversely affect Indigenous rights.14

The Duty to Consult

The SCC's decision on the duty to consult is split across four sets of reasons.

Seven out of nine Justices (a majority) found that the duty to consult is not triggered by the development of legislation:

  •  Justice Karakatsanis (Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Gascon concurring)15
  •  Justice Brown,16 and
  •  Justice Rowe (Justices Moldaver and Côté concurring), concurring with the reasons of Justice Brown.17

Two Justices (a minority) disagreed, and concluded that the duty to consult is triggered by the development of legislation. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justices Abella and Martin.18

The SCC disagreed on several points:

1 Does "Crown conduct" include the development, introduction, consideration and 1enactment of legislation?

The duty to consult is triggered by "Crown conduct." Justice Karakatsanis held that the law-making process does not constitute Crown conduct.19 Crown conduct includes "executive conduct and conduct taken on behalf of the executive,"20 but excludes legislative conduct, such as the development, passage and enactment of legislation.21 However, Justice Karakatsanis clarified that the process of adopting subordinate legislation (regulations and rules) constitutes executive conduct, and is therefore subject to the duty to consult.22

Justices Brown and Rowe agreed that Crown conduct excludes the legislative or parliamentary role of the Canadian state.23

Justice Abella found that "because the honour of the Crown infuses the entirety of the government's relationship with Indigenous peoples, the duty to consult must apply to all exercises of [government] authority"24 with the potential to adversely affect s. 35 rights, including legislative action.25

2 Does applying the duty to consult to the law-making process conflict with democratic principles?

The SCC considered three democratic principles:

  1. Separation of Powers – The separation of powers "recognizes that each branch of government 'will be unable to fulfill its role if it is unduly interfered with by the others.'"26
  2. Parliamentary Sovereignty – Parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to make or unmake laws within its constitutional authority.27
  3. Parliamentary Privilege – Parliamentary privilege allows legislatures to determine their own procedure to enact legislation.28

The majority of the SCC (Justices Karakatsanis', Justice Brown's, and Justice Rowe's reasons) agreed that recognizing a duty to consult during the law-making process would offend these democratic principles because such recognition may:

  •  "require courts to improperly trespass onto the legislature's domain" and supervise the law making process29
  •  "constrain [Parliament] in pursuing its mandate and therefore undermine its ability to act as the voice of the electorate,"30 and
  •  Interfere with Parliament's ability to decide its own procedure.31

Justice Rowe provided that "Section 35 rights are not absolute. Like other provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982 it is both supported and confined by broader constitutional principles."32

Justice Abella disagreed and held that democratic principles "cannot displace the honour of the Crown... the right of Aboriginal groups to be consulted on decisions that may adversely affect their interests is not merely political, but a legal right with constitutional force."33 Justice Abella concluded that the Court must "reconcile, not choose between, protecting the legislative process from judicial interference and protecting Aboriginal rights from the legislative process."34 In so doing, Justice Abella found that Aboriginal rights impose boundaries on Crown actions.35

3 Would applying the duty to consult to the law-making process be impractical?

Justices Karakatsanis and Rowe discussed the impracticalities of imposing a duty to consult during the law-making process. Justice Rowe stated that the preparation of legislation is a "highly complex process involving multiple actors across multiple governments." Justice Rowe considered that "imposing a duty to consult at this stage could effectively grind the day-to-day internal operation of government to a halt."36

Justice Karakatsanis stated that determining the executive steps of the legislative process to which the duty to consult applies would be "an enormously difficult task."37 She also considered that since changes made to proposed legislation during consultation could be undone by Parliament, meaningful accommodation of Indigenous concerns during legislative development may be limited.38

4 What does the Honour of the Crown require of the Legislature? 4

Justice Karakatsanis concluded that the honour of the Crown applies whether the Crown is acting in its legislative or executive capacity.39 However, what the honour of the Crown requires will depend on the circumstances in which it is engaged.40 In some circumstances, the honour of the Crown requires a duty to consult.41

Justice Karakatsanis stated that "simply because the duty to consult...is inapplicable in the legislative sphere, does not mean the [Crown] is absolved of its obligation to conduct itself honourably."42

Justice Abella agreed with Justice Karakatsanis that the honour of the Crown attaches to both the executive and legislative branches of government.43

By contrast, Justice Brown and Justice Rowe concluded that the Crown is a separate entity from the Legislature;44 therefore, the honour of the Crown does not bind Parliament.45

5 What remedies are available to Indigenous peoples where governments develop laws 5that could adversely affect their rights?

The Mikisew Cree argued that if the development of legislation cannot be challenged on the basis of the duty to consult, Indigenous rights "will be subject to inconsistent protection."46

Justice Karakatsanis affirmed that where enacted legislation infringes s. 35 rights, Indigenous peoples can challenge the constitutional validity of the legislation through a Sparrow claim.47 In determining whether legislation that infringes a s. 35 right is justified under the Sparrow framework, the Court may consider whether the Indigenous group in question was consulted.48

However, Justice Karakatsanis accepted that "if the effects of the legislation do not rise to the level of infringement, or if the rights are merely asserted (and not established), an Aboriginal group will not be able to successfully challenge the constitutional validity of the legislation through a Sparrow claim."49 In such situations, since the duty to consult does not provide an avenue to challenge the development of legislation, Indigenous groups would be left without a remedy.

Where the Sparrow doctrine is inapplicable, Justice Karakatsanis noted that "other doctrines may be developed to ensure the consistent protection of s. 35 rights and to give full effect to the honour of the Crown through review of enacted legislation."50 For example, "other doctrines" could address situations where governments "legislate in a way that effectively removes future Crown conduct which would otherwise trigger the duty to consult."51

Justice Brown disagreed that validly enacted and constitutionally compliant legislation could be declared inconsistent with the honour of the Crown, and cautioned that Justice Karakatsanis's approach could "throw this area of the law into significant uncertainty."52 Justice Rowe added the Sparrow infringement analysis strongly incentivized governments to consult in developing legislation.53

Justice Abella stated that the duty to consult provides "remedies on a reduced threshold [compared to the Sparrow framework], based on the potential for adverse effects on a claimed or asserted right."54 If the duty to consult does not apply to legislative action, s. 35 rights-holders are left "vulnerable to the same government objectives carried out through legislative, rather than executive, action."55 Justice Abella asserted that Aboriginal rights required the strong protections provided through the duty to consult as opposed to a "vague and unenforceable right to 'honourable dealing.'"56

Conclusions

Mikisew Cree offers little certainty to parties invested in the consultation process. Instead of offering a path toward reconciliation, Mikisew Cree appears to invite more litigation. For now, Mikisew Cree provides the following:

  • The duty to consult does not apply to the law-making process (although it does apply to the process of adopting subordinate legislation).
  • The honour of the Crown may give rise to new doctrines that address impacts to Indigenous rights where the duty to consult and Sparrow frameworks do not apply.
  • Whether or not a duty to consult exists, it is good policy for governments to consult affected Indigenous groups during the law-making process.57

In practice, consultation on policy options in preparation of legislation, and consultation through House and Senate Committees during law making is often undertaken. While not legally required, we can expect to see a greater effort to consult with Indigenous people affected by proposed legislation as a result of this decision.

Footnotes

1 2018 SCC 40 [Mikisew Cree].

2 See the Tlicho Agreement section 23.6.1, Nunavut Agreement section 9.3.1

3 SC 2012, c19; SC 2012, c31.

4 Bill C-38 introduced a new environmental assessment regime and significantly amended the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act. Bill C-45 significantly amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act, now named the Navigation Protection Act.

5 Mikisew Cree at paras 5, 9.

6 Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2014 FC 1244 at para 6. 

7 Courtoreille v Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2014 FC 1244.

8 Mikisew Cree at para 10.

9 Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7 ss 18, 18.1 [FCA].

10 Canada (Governor General in Council v Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2016 FCA 311.

11 Mikisew Cree at para 11.

12 Mikisew Cree at para 18.

13 Mikisew Cree at paras 15-18, 54, 101, 148.

14 Mikisew Cree at paras 48, 89-90, 145, 155. 

15 Mikisew Cree at paras 1-54.

16 Mikisew Cree at paras 100-147.

17 Mikisew Cree at paras 148-172.

18 Mikisew Cree at paras 54-99.

19 Mikisew Cree at para 2.

20 Mikisew Cree at para 27.

21 Mikisew Cree at para 31-32.

22 Mikisew Cree at para 51.

23 Mikisew Cree at para 128 and 148.

24 Mikisew Cree at para 63.

25 Mikisew Cree at para 55. 

26 Mikisew Cree at para 35.

27 Mikisew Cree at para 36.

28 Subject to the requirements contained in Part IV Constitution Act, 1867; Mikisew Cree at para 123.

29 Mikisew Cree at para 35.

30 Mikisew Cree at para 36.

31 Mikisew Cree at paras 38, 124, 148.

32 Mikisew Cree at para 153.

33 Mikisew Cree at para 84.

34 Mikisew Cree at para 84.

35 Mikisew Cree at paras 86, 88, 91. 

36 Mikisew Cree at para 164.

37 Mikisew Cree at para 40.

38 Mikisew Cree at para 40.

39 Mikisew Cree at para 23.

40 Mikisew Cree at para 24.

41 Mikisew Cree at para 25.

42 Mikisew Cree at para 52.

43 Mikisew Cree at para 54.

44 Mikisew Cree at paras 102, 129-32, 148, 161.

45 Mikisew Cree at para 135.

46 Mikisew Cree at para 43. 

47 Mikisew Cree at para 43; The Sparrow framework provides that the Crown cannot infringe established Aboriginal rights or treaty rights unless it is "justified." According to the Sparrow framework, the Crown is "justified" in infringing established Aboriginal or treaty rights where (a) the Crown has a compelling and substantial legislative objective and (b) the public benefit achieved through the infringement is proportionate to any adverse effect on Aboriginal rights. A key consideration in the proportionality analysis is whether the Indigenous group was consulted during the development of the impugned legislation (see Mikisew Cree at para 77).

48 Mikisew Cree at para 48.

49 Mikisew Cree at para 43.

50 Mikisew Cree at para 45.

51 Mikisew Cree at para 46.

52 Mikisew Cree at para 104.

53 Mikisew Cree at para 155.

54 Mikisew Cree at para 79.

55 Mikisew Cree at para 79.

56 Mikisew Cree at para 84. 

57 Mikisew Cree at paras 48, 54, 145, 155, 166 

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Julie Abouchar
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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