Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British
Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 is an extraordinarily important decision. Critically it gives aboriginal groups the
exclusive power to decide on the use of lands forever.
The decision recognized a First Nation's title to a specific tract of land -- with major implications for contentious energy projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline. The decision will make it easier for First Nations to establish title over lands that were regularly used for hunting, fishing and other activities.
A legal summary of some of the decision follows:
The nature of Aboriginal title is
that it confers on the group that holds it the exclusive right to decide how
the land is used and the right to benefit from those uses, subject to the
restriction that the uses must be consistent with the group nature of the
interest and the enjoyment of the land by future generations. Prior to
establishment of title, the Crown is required to consult in good faith with any
Aboriginal groups asserting title to the land about proposed uses of the land
and, if appropriate, accommodate the interests of such claimant groups. The
level of consultation and accommodation required varies with the strength of
the Aboriginal group’s claim to the land and the seriousness of the potentially
adverse effect upon the interest claimed.
Where Aboriginal title has been
established, the Crown must not only comply with its procedural duties, but
must also justify any incursions on Aboriginal title lands by ensuring that the
proposed government action is substantively consistent with the requirements of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 . This requires
demonstrating both a compelling and substantial governmental objective and that
the government action is consistent with the fiduciary duty owed by the Crown
to the Aboriginal group. This means the government must act in a way that
respects the fact that Aboriginal title is a group interest that inheres in
present and future generations, and the duty infuses an obligation of
proportionality into the justification process: the incursion must be necessary
to achieve the government’s goal (rational connection); the government must go
no further than necessary to achieve it (minimal impairment); and the benefits
that may be expected to flow from that goal must not be outweighed by adverse
effects on the Aboriginal interest (proportionality of impact). Allegations of
infringement or failure to adequately consult can be avoided by obtaining the
consent of the interested Aboriginal group. This s. 35 framework permits a principled
reconciliation of Aboriginal rights with the interests of all Canadians.
No comments:
Post a Comment