Litigation

R. v. Boyer
2022

Recognition of the Métis community’s Aboriginal right to harvest wood in the boreal forest for personal and cultural use, as per section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

R. v. Boyer
&
R. v. Poitras
2020

Métis individuals Oliver Poitras and Warren Boyer were convicted of fishing without a license. Defense argued that they possessed an Aboriginal right to fish or hunt for food in their community. However, while the judge accepted the existence of a historical rights-bearing Métis community in northwest Saskatchewan, it did not consider Chitek Lake and Alcott Creek to be part of it.

R. v. Desautel
2019

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that Indigenous claimants need not be Canadian citizens or residents to hold constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

R. v. Boyer, Myette, & Poitras
2018

The court determined that Métis are not included in the term “Indians” in the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Transfer Agreement and established criteria for identifying Métis rights-bearing communities.


Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia
2014

Recognition that provinces cannot engage in activities like clearcut logging on Aboriginal title-protected lands without meaningful consultation.

R. v. Hirsekorn
2013

The Alberta Court of Appeal found that Métis rights were not extinguished by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement and that the test for establishing Métis rights from R. v. Powley applied in this case.

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada
2013

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the Canadian government’s failure to fulfill its promise to the Métis people under the Manitoba Act of 1870. The Act intended to grant Métis children land shares and recognize existing Métis landholdings. The Court found that the Crown did not diligently fulfill this promise, violating the honour of the Crown.

R. v. Goodon
2009

This case acknowledges the legitimacy of the Manitoba Métis Federation governance structures, like the Harvester Card system, by affirming the rights of Métis individuals who possess a Harvester Card to engage in hunting activities.

R. v. Belhumeur
2007

Métis have a constitutionally protected Aboriginal right to fish for food as recognized under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In this case, the court acknowledged Belhumeur’s Métis ancestry, membership in the contemporary Métis community, and the cultural significance of fishing to Métis in the Qu’Appelle Valley.

R. v. Willison
2006

In a decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court that overturned the trial court’s acquittal, it was concluded that the evidence presented did not support the existence of a historical or contemporary Métis community in the Falkland area. This determination suggested that Métis rights to hunt under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, could not be established in this region.

R. v. Laviolette
2005

The court considered whether Laviolette had an Aboriginal right to fish under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The judge applied the Powley test to determine if a historic Métis community with fishing rights existed in the area. Based on historical evidence of Métis mobility and regional unity, the court found that Laviolette had an Aboriginal right to fish for food. As a result, Section 13(1) of The Fisheries Regulations did not apply to him, and the charge was dismissed.

R. v. Blais
2003

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that Métis people are not considered “Indians” for the purposes of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA) of 1930, and therefore their hunting rights are not protected against provincial laws by the agreement.

R. v. Powley
2003

Establishment of the “Powley Test” in a Landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that defined Métis Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The case involved Steve and Roddy Powley, a Métis father and son who were charged with hunting a moose without a license in Ontario. They successfully argued that as Métis, they had an Aboriginal right to hunt for food.

R. v. Maurice
2001

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court examined whether Métis rights were protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court concluded that the Métis people’s rights, including hunting rights, were not extinguished by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA) of 1930.


R. v. Morin and Daigneault
1996

Recognition that Métis communities have Aboriginal rights to fish under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that these rights were not extinguished by the Scrip process.

Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Enactment No. 3
Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June 1870

The Rupert’s Land Order of 1870 marked the transfer of ownership from the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada. As part of this historic event, unsettled Indigenous land claims were transferred to the Canadian government.