Case information

Aboriginal law — Aboriginal rights — Conflicting rights claims — Motion to strike pleadings — Standing — Whether party may proceed by civil action — Enforcement policy — Prosecutorial discretion — Can an alleged duty to consult owed to an Indigenous community in respect of asserted but unproven Indigenous rights provide that Indigenous community with legal standing to seek a declaration concerning the existence and scope of rights of another Indigenous community — Can a Court issue a mandatory declaration in the nature of an injunction, ordering the Crown not to apply an enforcement policy in respect of specific people, where a third-party asserts constitutional rights — Can a party which is only seeking to quash executive decisions for a breach of a duty to consult choose to proceed by way of civil action, rather than judicial review?

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.

The Algonquins have been negotiating with Ontario and Canada to arrive at a treaty concerning, among other matters, harvesting rights within a settlement area. In 2017, Ontario recognized Métis communities and extended harvesting rights to two Métis communities in an area that overlaps the Algonquin settlement area. The Algonquins commenced an action seeking declarations. Ontario and the Métis Nation of Ontario brought motions to strike the statement of claim. The motion judge struck the claims for declarations in the statement of claim, except for a claim that Ontario breached the duty to consult, without leave to amend except to assert that the honour of the Crown informs the duty to consult in this case. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and dismissed cross-appeals.