Aboriginal land title in Canada

Last updated

In Canada, aboriginal title is considered a sui generis interest in land. Aboriginal title has been described this way in order to distinguish it from other proprietary interests, but also due to the fact its characteristics cannot be explained by reference either to only the common law rules of real property, or to only the rules of property found in Indigenous legal systems. [1] [2] [3] [4] The Supreme Court of Canada has characterised the idea that aboriginal title is sui generis as the unifying principle underlying the various dimensions of that title. [2] [5] Aboriginal title is properly construed as neither a real right nor a personal right, despite the fact that it appears to share characteristics of both real and personal rights. [6] Aboriginal title refers to the concept of a sui generis right in land that originates from the exclusive occupation and use of a specific territory by an aboriginal group over which the group has a native historic attachment. [6] [7]

Contents

Source of aboriginal title

In St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), the Supreme Court initially described aboriginal title as a “personal and usufructuary right” which derives its source from the Royal Proclamation of 1763. [8] However, the Supreme Court's understanding of aboriginal title in Canadian constitutional law has changed over time. [9] [10] While the Royal Proclamation recognized the existence of aboriginal title, the constitutional document issued by King George III is not its source. It is now clear in Canadian constitutional law that the doctrine of terra nullius (roughly, "no man's land") never applied in Canada. To apply terra nullius would ignore aboriginal groups' relationship to the land and imply that prior to the assertion of Crown sovereignty, all land in Canada had never been occupied. Instead, the Royal Proclamation expressly recognizes that aboriginal peoples were in possession of the land prior to assertion of British sovereignty. [11] Given that it arises from the prior occupation of land by indigenous people, aboriginal interest in land is described as a "burden" on the Crown’s underlying title. [12] This prior occupation is of importance and illustrates the sui generis , or unique, nature of aboriginal title. In Guerin v The Queen (1984), the Supreme Court described aboriginal title as a right that derives from indigenous people's historic occupation and possession of their traditional lands. [1] The fact that aboriginal title arises from a possession before the assertion of European sovereignty is the principal element that differentiates it from estates such as fee simple estates. However, aboriginal title does confer ownership rights similar to those associated with a fee simple. [11]

In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014), the Supreme Court stated:

The characteristics of Aboriginal title flow from the special relationship between the Crown and the Aboriginal group in question. It is this relationship that makes Aboriginal title sui generis or unique. Aboriginal title is what it is, the unique product of the historic relationship between the Crown and the Aboriginal group in question. Analogies to other forms of property ownership, for example, fee simple, may help us to understand aspects of Aboriginal title. But they cannot dictate precisely what it is or is not. As Justice Gérard Vincent La Forest put it in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia , Aboriginal title “is not equated with fee simple ownership; nor can it be described with reference to traditional property law concepts". [11]

Content of aboriginal title

Aboriginal title to land can be described by two main characteristics. First, aboriginal title provides a right of exclusive use and occupation over the land held. The purposes for which the land is held does not need to be limited to aboriginal practices, customs and traditions that are integral to distinctive aboriginal cultures. [11] In other words, aboriginal title to land is not limited in any way to the historic and traditional uses of land by aboriginal people (e.g., hunting or fishing). Instead, aboriginal title encompasses a wide variety of uses that includes natural resources on and under the ground. [13]

Aboriginal title confers the right to decide how the land will be used, enjoyed, occupied, possessed, pro-actively used and managed, and the right to the economic benefits of the land. [14] In other words, "[w]hat aboriginal title confers is the right to the land itself". [12] [11]

However, there is an inherent limit to these uses, which is described by the second main characteristic of aboriginal title. The land cannot be used in a manner that is irreconcilable with the nature of the community’s attachment to the land in question. [12] [15] In other words, the exclusive protected use of land by indigenous people must not be completely inconsistent with the nature of the community's attachment to the land which forms the basis of a particular group’s claim to aboriginal title. [11] [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Canada</span>

The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.

The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of patriating the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, including re-naming it the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition to patriating the Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1982 enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; guaranteed rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada; provided for future constitutional conferences; and set out the procedures for amending the Constitution in the future.

R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 was an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court held that Aboriginal rights, such as fishing, that were in existence in 1982 are protected under the Constitution of Canada cannot be infringed without justification on account of the government's fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to the indigenous and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. The section, while within the Constitution of Canada, falls outside the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section does not define the term "aboriginal rights" or provide a closed list; some examples of the rights that section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to land and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to indigenous self-government is included within section 35. As of 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada has made no ruling on the matter. However, since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.

Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law.

Guerin v The Queen [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on Aboriginal rights where the Court first stated that the government has a fiduciary duty towards the First Nations of Canada and established Aboriginal title to be a sui generis right.

R v Marshall; R v Bernard 2005 SCC 43 is a leading Aboriginal rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court narrowed the test from R. v. Marshall for determining the extent of constitutional protection upon Aboriginal practices. The Court held that there was no right to commercial logging granted in the "Peace and Friendship treaties of 1760", the same set of treaties where the right to commercial fishing was granted in the R. v. Marshall decision. This decision also applied and developed the test for aboriginal title from Delgamuukw v British Columbia.

<i>Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada</i> (AG)

Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG), 2000 CanLII 16991, 51 OR (3d) 641; 195 DLR (4th) 135 was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning aboriginal title in Canada.

The discovery doctrine, or doctrine of discovery, is a disputed interpretation of international law during the Age of Discovery, introduced into United States municipal law by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). In Marshall's formulation of the doctrine, discovery of territory previously unknown to Europeans gave the discovering nation title to that territory against all other European nations, and this title could be perfected by possession. A number of legal scholars have criticized Marshall's interpretation of the relevant international law. In recent decades, advocates for Indigenous rights have campaigned against the doctrine. In 2023, the Vatican formally repudiated the doctrine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian Aboriginal law</span> Canadian law regarding indigenous people

Canadian Aboriginal law is the body of law of Canada that concerns a variety of issues related to Indigenous peoples in Canada. Canadian Aboriginal Law is different from Canadian Indigenous law: In Canada, Indigenous Law refers to the legal traditions, customs, and practices of Indigenous peoples and groups. Aboriginal peoples as a collective noun is a specific term of art used in legal documents, including the Constitution Act, 1982, and includes First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. Canadian Aboriginal law provides certain constitutionally recognized rights to land and traditional practices. Canadian Aboriginal Law enforces and interprets certain treaties between the Crown and Indigenous people, and manages much of their interaction. A major area of Aboriginal law involves the duty to consult and accommodate.

Geoff Plant, is a British Columbia lawyer and retired politician known for his interest in citizen's legal and electoral rights and aboriginal rights.

Brian Slattery, B.A., BCL, D.Phil., F.R.S.C., is a Professor Emeritus of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is a prominent academic in Canadian Constitutional Law and Aboriginal rights discourse. He practices Aboriginal law at Slattery & Slattery.

Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Ancestral domain or ancestral lands refers to the lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The term differs from indigenous land rights, Aboriginal title or Native Title by directly indicating relationship to land based on ancestry, while domain indicates relationships beyond material lands and territories, including spiritual and cultural aspects that may not be acknowledged in land titles and legal doctrine about trading ownership.

Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqotʼin First Nation, with larger effects. As a result of the landmark decision, provinces cannot unilaterally claim a right to engage in clearcut logging on lands protected by Aboriginal title; they must engage in meaningful consultation with the title holder before they proceed. Although the Aboriginal title holder does not have to consent to the activity, meaningful consultation is required before infringement of the right can take place.

In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate with Aboriginal peoples arises when the Crown contemplates actions or decisions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. This duty arises most often in the context of natural resource extraction such as mining, forestry, oil, and gas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jack Woodward</span> Canadian lawyer (born 1951)

Jack Woodward is a Canadian lawyer. He specializes in Canadian Aboriginal law and is the author of Aboriginal Law in Canada, which is considered the leading Canadian publication on Aboriginal Law.

Settler colonialism in Canada is the continuation and the results of the colonization of the assets of the Indigenous peoples in Canada. As colonization progressed, the Indigenous peoples were subject to policies of forced assimilation and cultural genocide. The policies signed many of which were designed to both allowed stable houses. Governments in Canada in many cases ignored or chose to deny the aboriginal title of the First Nations. The traditional governance of many of the First Nations was replaced with government-imposed structures. Many of the Indigenous cultural practices were banned. First Nation's people status and rights were less than that of settlers. The impact of colonization on Canada can be seen in its culture, history, politics, laws, and legislatures.

References

  1. 1 2 "Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335". Supreme Court of Canada.
  2. 1 2 "Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010". Supreme Court of Canada.
  3. ↑ "R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075". Supreme Court of Canada.
  4. ↑ Slattery, Brian (2007-01-01). "THE METAMORPHOSIS OF ABORIGINAL TITLE". The Canadian Bar Review. 85 (2). ISSN   0008-3003.
  5. ↑ "R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507". Supreme Court of Canada.
  6. 1 2 "Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam), 2020 SCC 4". Supreme Court of Canada.
  7. ↑ Allard, France (2012). Private law dictionary and bilingual lexicons. Property. Cowansville, Québec, Canada. ISBN   978-2-89635-731-4. OCLC   806536250.
  8. ↑ Slattery, Brian (2019-12-07). "Aboriginal Title and the Royal Proclamation of 1763: Origins and Illusions". SSRN   3500145.
  9. ↑ Buist, Margaret (2020). Halsbury's Laws of Canada – Aboriginal. 2020 (First ed.). Toronto, Ontario: LexisNexis Canada. ISBN   978-0-433-50339-2. OCLC   1158458897.
  10. ↑ Gagne, Jocelyn (1982). "The Content of Aboriginal Title at Common Law: A Look at the Nishga Claim". Sask. L. Rev. 47: 309.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014] 2 SCR 257". Supreme Court of Canada.
  12. 1 2 3 "Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010". Supreme Court of Canada.
  13. ↑ McNeil, Kent (2016-01-01). "Indigenous Law and Aboriginal Title". All Papers.
  14. 1 2 "Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam), 2020 SCC 4". Supreme Court of Canada.
  15. ↑ Slattery, Brian (2015-12-31). "The Constitutional Dimensions of Aboriginal Title". The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference. 71 (1).


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.