Case information

Family law — Support — Child support — Aboriginal law — Aboriginal rights — Self government —Provincial laws of general application — Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 — Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F 3 – Indigenous mother seeking custody, child and spousal support from Indigenous father — Father challenging jurisdiction of court and applicability of Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act on basis of s. 35 of Constitution Act, 1982 — Will Indigenous people have full and equal access to provincial and federal family law protections? — Should single individual, acting without community authorization, have standing to make self government claim in relation to law making under s. 35 of Constitution Act, 1982? — Is “sweeping claim . . . to a form of sovereign immunity from the laws of Ontario and of Canada” justiciable? — Under what circumstances should appellate courts interfere with discretionary costs decisions?

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.

Ms. Beaver and Mr. Hill are Haudenosaunee and are members of the Six Nations of Grand River. They were in an intimate relationship from 2008 to 2013 and had one child, who was born in 2009. Mr. Hill resides on the Six Nations Reserve where he owns a successful business. The child has been in Ms. Beaver’s primary care since birth. She has not worked outside of the home since December, 2008.

In December 2015, Ms. Beaver brought an application for custody under the Children’s Law Reform Act and child and spousal support under the Family Law Act. Mr. Hill filed an Answer and defence in February 2016. In March 2016, he filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, as well as the applicability of the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, on the basis that he was Aboriginal with the right, protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to have his family law disputes resolved pursuant to Haudenosaunee law and processes.

Mr. Hill moved for an order dismissing Ms. Beaver’s family law application, or, in the alternative, for an order staying her application for interim relief in order to allow his constitutional challenge to proceed first. In addition to claims for interim child and spousal support, Ms. Beaver sought a declaration that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to deal with the family law issues and an order striking the Amended Answer, or an order staying Mr. Hill’s constitutional challenge.

The motion judge determined that the court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the parties’ family law dispute. She struck out Mr. Hill’s Amended Answer and dismissed the constitutional claim. In a subsequent motion, Mr. Hill was ordered to pay significant interim child support, and 100 per cent of the child’s extra expenses. The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Hill’s appeal in part, by granting Mr. Hill leave to amend his pleadings.

---

---

---