Case information

Constitutional law — Charter — Courts — Judicial review — Jurisdiction — Stare decisis — Prosecutorial discretion — During litigation in another case, Minister extended Interim Enforcement Policy (“IEP”) of non-enforcement of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 41, to respondent Williams Treaties First Nations — Whether R. v. Howard, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299, can be ignored — Whether Minister’s decision to apply IEP to respondents was valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion — Whether Minister’s decision to apply IEP to respondents discriminates against applicants based on race — If so, whether program drawing distinctions based on race can have as its object ameliorating conditions of disadvantaged group under Charter, s. 15(2) — Whether applicants’ rights are relevant to Charter, s. 15(2) — Whether IEP and Minister’s decision to apply it to respondents lie within s. 25’s compass — If so, whether applicants’ s. 15 claim barred — Interpretive guidelines for resolving conflict between Charter rights of aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples if Charter, s. 25, is interpretive.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In the course of prolonged litigation wherein the Alderville First Nations, as part of the Williams Treaty First Nations (the “First Nations”), brought a civil suit seeking relief in relation to the 1923 Williams Treaties, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry informed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters that Canada and Ontario were taking the position that not all of the First Nations’ pre-existing treaty rights had been extinguished by the Treaties. The Federation applied for judicial review of the IEP, seeking declarations to prevent the Minister from applying the IEP to the 1923 Williams Treaties’ lands and signatories. The Minister brought a motion to quash the Federation’s application for judicial review. The application was quashed. The Federation’s motion for judicial review of that decision was dismissed, and its application for leave to appeal that further decision was refused.