Daniels v. Canada
| Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: 8 October 2015 Judgment: 14 April 2016 |
|
| Full case name | Harry Daniels, Gabriel Daniels, Leah Gardner, Terry Joudrey and Congress of Aboriginal Peoples v Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Attorney General of Canada |
| Citations | 2016 SCC 12 |
| Docket No. | 35945 |
| Prior history | APPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from Canada (Indian Affairs) v Daniels 2014 FCA 101, [2014] 4 FCR 97 (17 April 2014), setting aside in part Daniels v Canada 2013 FC 6, [2013] 2 FCR 268 (8 January 2013) |
| Ruling | Appeal allowed in part and cross‑appeal dismissed. |
| Holding | |
| "Indians" under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a broad term referring to all Indigenous peoples in Canada. | |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Rosalie Abella, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner, Clément Gascon, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Unanimous reasons by | Abella J |
Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, ruling that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Plaintiffs in the case were Harry Daniels, a Métis activist from Saskatchewan, who died before the case was heard; his son Gabriel; Leah Gardner, a non-status Indian from Ontario; Terry Joudrey, a non-status Indian from Nova Scotia; and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The Defendants were Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and the Attorney General of Canada.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare:
This was based on the facts that the Métis had been considered Aboriginals in Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory, that non-status Indians were those descended from Indians that the Indian Act did not apply to, and that because of the government's refusal to recognize these groups, that they have been discriminated against.
The defendants argued that there were insufficient facts for a declaration to be issued, that Métis had never been considered Indians, that there was not a group known as "non-status Indians", and denied allegations of discrimination. They claimed that issuing any declaration requested by the plaintiffs would only lead to more litigation.
The Federal Court agreed to the first declaration, while dismissing the other two. It determined that such a declaration was along the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People It found that the overarching purposes of the Constitution Act, 1867 were settlement, expansion and development of the Dominion; that building a transcontinental railroad was integral to these purposes, that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867—the power over 'Indians'—was related to these purposes, that by s. 91(24) the Framers of the Constitution Act, 1867 intended to give themselves adequate power to deal with any and all situations involving indigenous people that could frustrate these purposes and accordingly the power over "Indians" at s. 91(24) was large enough to deal with all Aboriginal people, including the Métis of the West. The court found support for that interpretation in the fact that Métis had been recognized as Indians under the . He agreed that the definition of "Indian" in the Indian Act was narrower with the one found in s 91(24).
...
Wikipedia