The Labrador Metis Nation v Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2006 NLTD 119
This application was heard in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division.
The plaintiffs, the Labrador Metis Nation and Carter Russel, asserted that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had a duty to consult the Labrador Metis people, as represented by the Labrador Metis Nation, about a new phase in the construction of the Trans Labrador Highway. The plaintiffs claimed Aboriginal status as Inuit-Metis of south and central Labrador and argued that they held Aboriginal rights which were protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and which triggered the Crown's duty to consult.
The provincial government argued that although the duty to consult may be triggered by claims that are not yet proven, assertions of Aboriginal or treaty rights must still be clear and credible in order to trigger the duty to consult. According to the government, the applicants in this case had not provided the Crown with clear information about the community that was said to hold the Aboriginal rights that would trigger the duty to consult.
Relying on the analytical approach that the Supreme Court of Canada developed in R v Powley, 2003 SCC 43 (CanLII), the Court assessed whether the historical record supported the existence of an historical Inuit-Metis community, and it also assessed whether a contemporary Inuit-Metis community (rooted in that historical community) existed in the present day. The Court found that the evidence suggested strongly that an historical Inuit-Metis community existed and that the community continued to exist in the present day.
The Court then went on to assess whether the Crown's duty to consult had been triggered. Applying the test that the Supreme Court of Canada established in Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the Court assessed whether the Crown had knowledge of an Aboriginal claim or right that had been asserted and whether the Crown contemplated conduct that could affect that asserted claim or right adversely (negatively).
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Crown's duty to consult was triggered, and it held that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had a duty to engage in meaningful consultation with the Labrador Metis people, as represented by the Labrador Metis Nation.
The case was subsequently appealed in Newfoundland and Labrador v. Labrador Métis Nation, 2007 NLCA 75, and then again in Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, as represented by the Minister of Environment and Conservation and the Minister of Transportation and Works v. Labrador Métis Nation, a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Carter Russell, of Happy Valley Goose Bay, Labrador, 2008 CanLII 32711 (SCC).
View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2006/2006nltd119/2006nltd119.html
Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case.
If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.