Appellant (Dissent)
What would the appellant like for the court to ultimately do?
(i.e. what are YOU going to ask at the end of your submission)
Overturn the decision of the Supreme Court and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for further review on 14(1)(c) and 14(2).
What would the Respondent like for the court to ultimately do?
(i.e. what are YOU going to ask the court to do at the end of you submission)
Uphold the decision of the Supreme Court and of the Tribunal.
What is a fiduciary duty?
A duty of care owed from one party with power and control over the interests of another party to that party.
(In this case, the Canadian Crown over the William Lake Indian Band).
What is the main statute governing the Specific Claims Tribunal that's at issue in this case?
The Specific Claims Tribunal Act (2008)
Name the main case that is used to inform the court on A BUNCH of issues:
- Fiduciary of land ownership
- Specific interests in land
(Basically, the one case you should know above all else)
Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada
Describe the Appellant's position on the Tribunal's ruling on section 14(1)(b) of the SCTA.
They agree with it; it was reasonable for the Tribunal to find that the Imperial BC Colony breached a fiduciary duty.
Describe the respondent's position on what the correct standard of review is for sections 14(1)(b), 14(1)(c) and 14(2) of the SCTA.
Reasonableness
Describe the "sui generis" fiduciary duty at issue in this case.
The idea that the Crown has a specific fiduciary duty to give the Williams Lake Indian Band the specific Village Lands that they are claiming.
Name the statute that gives responsibility from British Columbia to Canada for "the creation of Indian reserves according to a policy as liberal as the Colony’s."
Article 13 of the British Columbia Terms of Union (1871)
Name ONE OF the cases that informs the court on issues of deference and what the "standard of reasonableness" is.
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (para 28)
Nor-Man v. Manitoba (para 29)
Describe the Appellant's position on the Tribunal's ruling on section 14(1)(c) of the SCTA.
They disagree with it; it was unreasonable to say that post-confederation Canada breached the fiduciary duty of the Imperial BC Crown.
Describe the Respondent's position on the Tribunal's interpretation of section 14(1)(c) of the SCTA.
Agree with it; is was reasonable for them to conclude that Canada assumed the fiduciary duties of pre-Confederation Imperial BC.
Describe the "Ad Hoc" fiduciary duty discussed by the appellant (dissent).
The idea that article 13 of the Terms of Union (1871) gives a general fiduciary duty that the Crown for Aboriginal Peoples.
Describe what Proclamation No. 15 (1860) does in this case.
Gives the Imperial BC Crown the discretion and responsibility for sectioning off reserve lands for First Nations.
Name the case cited by the respondent (majority) that informs the court on what a "specific and cognizable Aboriginal interest" is.
Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (para 44)
Describe the Appellant's position on the Tribunal's ruling on section 14(2) of the SCTA.
They disagree with it; it was unreasonable to find that post-Confederation Canada "became responsible" for the liabilities of the pre-Confederation Imperial BC.
Describe the Respondent's position on how First Nations' historical relationship with "the Crown" works in favour of the Tribunal's findings.
What is a "specific and cognizable" interest?
A specific interest that arises between Aboriginal People in relation to the government of Canada owning their traditional territory. (para 52)
When the wording of sections like 14(1)(b)(c) and 14(2) are ambiguous, what do both sides (especially the appellant) suggest reviewing courts do?
Consider Parliament's Intention (para 50, 187)
Name the case that the appellant (dissent) cites as informing the court on when reviewing courts can add their own interpretation to decisions issued by administrative bodies.
Alberta v. Alberta Teachers’ Association (para 209)
Describe the appellant's position on whether section 14(2) of the SCTA is a "limitation" vs. an "enforcement mechanism."
It is not a limitation on the claims that can be made to the Tribunal; rather it's a mechanism for enforcing Canada's liability to past breaches made by pre-Confederation governments.
This distinction explains why the Tribunal's interpretation is unreasonable. (para 184)
Describe the Respondent's (majority) position on how Canada argued an alternative, yet equally reasonable interpretation of the SCTA to that of the Tribunal.
Just because Canada proved that there was at least one other strongly-supported interpretation of the evidence doesn’t mean that the Tribunal’s interpretation was wrong.
Their interpretation simply had to be within a range of reasonable possibilities. (para 108)
What does the majority mean when they say the Imperial BC Crown's "Provincial Intransigence?"
The Imperial BC Crown's unwillingness to cooperate in providing the Village Lands to the Williams Lake Indian Band. (para 77)
What was the name of the piece of government legislation that governed First Nations' land claims before the Specific Claims Tribunal?
Outstanding Business: A Native Claims Policy (1982) (para 123)
Name the case cited by the majority that informs the court on how to interpret laws relating to Indigenous peoples.
Nowegijick v. The Queen (para 129)