Case information

Aboriginal law — Treaty rights — Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement — Interpretation — Jurisdiction of provincial superior court — Treaty provides for revenue sharing in certain cases — Treaty requires arbitration of revenue sharing disagreements — What principles apply to the interpretation of a modern land claims agreement which has the force of law — Whether terms of treaty remove jurisdiction of provincial superior court to hear and determine revenue sharing disagreements — If so, can parties attorn to jurisdiction of provincial superior court — Whether all Nunatsiavut claims, including those relating to constitutional duty to consult, honour of Crown and fiduciary duty, must be resolved through arbitration and not by provincial superior court.<br>

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 2004, after years of detailed negotiations, Nunatsiavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada entered into the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (“Treaty”). The Treaty is a comprehensive agreement. It addresses, among other things, the sharing of revenue from the exploitation of minerals located in Labrador, including Voisey’s Bay. It also says that disputes concerning the determination of revenue must be resolved by arbitration.

The revenue-sharing agreement had been observed for several years when Newfoundland and Labrador received certain monies from the developer responsible for exploiting the minerals in Voisey’s Bay. Nunatsiavut argued that those monies were “revenue” and should have been shared. It also alleged that Newfoundland and Labrador had failed to engage in consultation, as it was required to do under the Treaty and common law. Newfoundland and Labrador disputed the allegations. The parties weren’t able to resolve their dispute through the Subsurface Resource Revenue sharing committee established under the Treaty. Nunatsiavut then filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The main question was whether the monies were “revenue” under the Treaty, and whether the monies were subject to sharing.

At trial, the monies were found to be “revenue” under the Treaty, and Newfoundland and Labrador was found to be liable to Nunatsiavut for failing to share. On appeal, Newfoundland and Labrador questioned the court’s jurisdiction for the first time. The Court of Appeal concluded that, while some of Nunatsiavut’s issues could be heard by the courts, those issues were inextricably intertwined with an issue that fell squarely within the terms of the Treaty. As a result, the dispute was reserved for arbitration and could not be resolved in the courts.