Articles 2020

This article provides an overview of new legislation and how it has proven controversial with many First Nations. The article discusses how some object, not to the principle of transparency, but to the inherent paternalism in the form of transparency being imposed on First Nations by Ottawa. For many observers, this step is reminiscent of an outmoded approach toward First Nation-Crown relations.

Angelina Schliephake provides a summary of the OBA Aboriginal Section's program held on September 16, 2014 about two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

Carla Agatiello provides an summary of the OBA Aboriginal Section's Program on the Duty to Consult in the Administrative Law Context, held on October 8, 2014.

What will happen to the records from the residential schools Independent Assessment Process once it completes?

A message from incoming Chair Richard Ogden.

The OBA Aboriginal Law Section welcomed a new executive committee on June 24, marking the end of Julie Jai's two-year term as the Section's chair.

In the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia decision issued on June 26, 2014 (“Tsilhqot’in”), the Supreme Court of Canada granted a declaration of Aboriginal title to the appellant First Nation, and further declared that the province of British Columbia breached its duty to consult when it issued timber licenses to third parties, without engaging in meaningful consultation with the affected Aboriginal group.

The Ontario Bar Association’s Aboriginal Section welcomed a new executive on June 24, 2014, marking the end of Julie Jai’s two years as the Section’s Chair.

On Wednesday, October 23rd, the Aboriginal Law Section hosted “Ring of Fire – Hot or Cold?”, a panel discussion on proposed mining development in Treaty 9 territory. The distinguished expert panelists were Deputy Grand Chief Les Louttit of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation (“NAN”), the Honourable Bob Rae, lead negotiator for the Matawa First Nations, Dr. Christine Kaszycki for the Government of Ontario’s Ring of Fire Secretariat, and Joseph Gaboury of Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.

On April 17, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) released its much anticipated decision in Daniels v. Canada. The FCA held that “the Métis are included as ‘Indians’ within the meaning of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867”.