St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R

Last updated
St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameSt Catharines Milling and Lumber Company v The Queen
Decided12 December 1888
Citation(s)[1888] UKPC 70, 14 App Cas 46
Case history
Appealed fromSt. Catharines Milling and Lumber Co. v. R, 1887 CanLII 3, 13 SCR 577(20 June 1887), Supreme Court (Canada), affirming a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, [1] which affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Division, [2] restraining the defendants from cutting timber on lands in Ontario claimed to be public lands of the Province.
Court membership
Judges sitting Earl of Selborne, Lord Watson, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague E. Smith and Sir Richard Couch
Case opinions
Decision by Lord Watson

St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R [3] was the leading case on Aboriginal title in Canada for more than 80 years. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, affirming a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, held that Aboriginal title over land was allowed only at the Crown's pleasure and could be taken away at any time. The case, involving Ojibway Treaty No. 3, which had never been previously litigated before any court, is a leading decision in Canada on the differences between the division of legislative powers and property rights under the Constitution of Canada.

Contents

Background

At issue were treaty lands thought to be within Rupert's Land when Canada entered into Treaty 3 in 1873. Following the Ontario-Manitoba Boundary Case, [4] the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act 1889 [5] placed about two thirds of the treaty area in Ontario. Canada believed that it was entitled under the Treaty and its legislative authority under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 for "Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians" to administer Treaty lands. The lumber company was granted a federal permit to a timber berth on Lake Wabigoon, and the permit was challenged by the province.

Lower courts

In 1885, Chancellor Boyd of the Chancery Division held that the phrase "Lands reserved for the Indians" referred only to “Indian Reserves,” and "such words do not cover lands which have never been the subject of treaty or surrender, and as to which the Legislature or executive Government have never specifically appropriated or 'reserved' for the Indian population." On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that and stated that the lands transferred by the 1889 Act, other than those covered by Indian reserves, vested in the Crown in right of Ontario. That was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Privy Council

The Supreme Court ruling was affirmed by the Privy Council. Lord Watson identified the source of Aboriginal title as the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and he noted:

It was suggested in the course of the argument for the Dominion, that inasmuch as the proclamation recites that the territories thereby reserved for Indians had never 'been ceded to or purchased by' the Crown, the entire property of the land remained with them. That inference is, however, at variance with the terms of the [Proclamation], which shew that the tenure of the Indians was a personal and usufructuary right, dependent upon the good will of the Sovereign. The lands reserved are expressly stated to be 'parts of Our dominions and territories;' and it is declared to be the will and pleasure of the sovereign that, 'for the present,' they shall be reserved for the use of the Indians, as their hunting grounds, under his protection and dominion. There was a great deal of learned discussion at the Bar with respect to the precise quality of the Indian right, but their Lordships do not consider it necessary to express any opinion upon the point. It appears to them to be sufficient for the purposes of this case that there has been all along vested in the Crown a substantial and paramount estate, underlying the Indian title, which became a plenum dominium whenever that title was surrendered or otherwise extinguished.

Impact

Other issues arose from the decision. The Privy Council said, for example, that Ontario must relieve Canada of its obligations under the treaty since Ontario had the benefit of it, but subsequent litigation by Canada failed on that point too. In Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold, [6] the Privy Council extended the rule to deny the Indians any beneficial interest in the reserves that had been set apart for them under the Treaty. It took a series of federal/provincial agreements, culminating in the Canada/Ontario Indian Reserve Lands Agreement, [7] to provide an interim solution to the problems created those decisions. A further resolution was reached in 1986, with the passage of the Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act. [8]

Even though some of Lord Watson's observations were later varied by the Supreme Court of Canada in Guerin v. The Queen , the case is the starting point for an understanding of Aboriginal law in Canada.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Proclamation of 1763</span> British declaration outlining government for North American colonies

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III on 7 October 1763. It followed the Treaty of Paris (1763), which formally ended the Seven Years' War and transferred French territory in North America to Great Britain. The Proclamation forbade all settlements west of a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains, which was delineated as an Indian Reserve. Exclusion from the vast region of Trans-Appalachia created discontent between Britain and colonial land speculators and potential settlers. The proclamation and access to western lands was one of the first significant areas of dispute between Britain and the colonies and would become a contributing factor leading to the American Revolution. The 1763 proclamation line is more or less similar to the Eastern Continental Divide, extending from Georgia in the south to the divide's northern terminus near the middle of the northern border of Pennsylvania, where it intersects the northeasterly St. Lawrence Divide, and extends further through New England.

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oliver Mowat</span> Canadian lawyer and politician (1820–1903)

Sir Oliver Mowat was a Canadian lawyer, politician, and Ontario Liberal Party leader. He served for nearly 24 years as the third premier of Ontario. He was the eighth lieutenant governor of Ontario and one of the Fathers of Confederation. He is best known for defending successfully the constitutional rights of the provinces in the face of the centralizing tendency of the national government as represented by his longtime Conservative adversary, John A. Macdonald. This longevity and power was due to his maneuvering to build a political base around Liberals, Catholics, trade unions, and anti-French-Canadian sentiment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bruce County</span> County in Ontario, Canada

Bruce County is a county in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. It has eight lower-tier municipalities with a total 2016 population of 66,491. It is named for James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin and 12th Earl of Kincardine, the sixth Governor General of the Province of Canada. The Bruce name is also linked to the Bruce Trail and the Bruce Peninsula.

In Canada, an Indian reserve is defined by the Indian Act as a "tract of land, the legal title to which is vested in His Majesty, that has been set apart by His Majesty for the use and benefit of a band." Reserves are areas set aside for First Nations, one of the major groupings of Indigenous peoples in Canada, after a contract with the Canadian state, and are not to be confused with indigenous peoples' claims to ancestral lands under Aboriginal title.

<i>Indian Act</i> 1876 Canadian act of Parliament

The Indian Act is a Canadian act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document that defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history, the act has been a subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over five major changes" made in 2002.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

Treaty 3 was an agreement entered into on October 3, 1873, by Chief Mikiseesis on behalf of the Ojibwe First Nations and Queen Victoria. The treaty involved a vast tract of Ojibwe territory, including large parts of what is now northwestern Ontario and a small part of eastern Manitoba, to the Government of Canada. Treaty 3 also provided for rights for the Waasaakode Anishinaabe and other Ojibwe, through a series of agreements signed over the next year. The treaty was modified in 1875 when Nicolas Chatelain negotiated an adhesion that created a reserve, surveyed as reserve 16A, for Metis families connected to Mikiseesis' Rainy Lake Band. Reserve 16A and the Rainy Lake Band reserve were unified in 1967.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Numbered Treaties</span> 1871–1921 treaties between Canadas government and First Nations

The Numbered Treaties are a series of eleven treaties signed between the First Nations, one of three groups of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and the reigning monarch of Canada from 1871 to 1921. These agreements were created to allow the Government of Canada to pursue settlement and resource extraction in the affected regions, which include modern-day Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. These treaties expanded the Dominion of Canada with large tracts of land in exchange for promises made to the indigenous people of the area. These terms were dependent on individual negotiations and so specific terms differed with each treaty.

<i>Kruger v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Kruger v R, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the relationship between the Indian Act and provincial game laws. The Indian Act is a federal law enacted under the British North America Act, 1867, which gives jurisdiction over Aboriginals to the federal government. The Court found that the Indian Act's statement that provincial laws may apply to Aboriginal peoples in Canada as long as they apply to other people protects laws even if these laws affect Aboriginals more than others.

R. v. Jim (1915) 26 C.C.C. 236, was a decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court on Aboriginal ("Indian") hunting and provincial game laws. The court found that Aboriginal hunting on Indian reserves is primarily a federal jurisdiction, relating to section 91(24) of the British North America Act, 1867 which assigns "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" to the federal government.

<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 to that land by another colonising state. 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.

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the term treaty rights specifically refers to rights for indigenous peoples enumerated in treaties with settler societies that arose from European colonization.

<i>Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut</i> 18th century indigenous land rights case in Great Britain

Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1705–1773) was the first indigenous land rights litigation in history in a common law jurisdiction. James Youngblood Henderson, professor of law, calls the case "the first major legal test of indigenous tenure." Robert Clinton calls it the "first formal litigation of North American Indian rights."

Royal instructions are formal instructions issued to governors of the United Kingdom's colonial dependencies, and past instructions can be of continuing constitutional significance in a former colonial dependency or Dominion.

<i>Nadan v R</i> 1926 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruling

Nadan v R is a key ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the competence of the Parliament of Canada with respect to the restrictions laid out in the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, and whether it possessed extraterritorial jurisdiction.

<i>Labour Conventions Reference</i>

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG)[1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326, also known as the Labour Conventions Reference, is a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the distinct nature of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canadian federalism.

References

  1. St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Co. v. R., 1886 CanLII 30, 13 Ont. App. R. 148(20 April 1886), Court of Appeal (Ontario,Canada)
  2. (1885), 10 O.R. 196
  3. St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company v The Queen [1888] UKPC 70 , (1888) 14 App Cas 46(12 December 1888)
  4. "Ontario-Manitoba Boundary Case". 22 July 1884. Archived from the original on 4 October 2012. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
  5. "Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (U.K.)". 12 August 1889. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
  6. The Ontario Mining Company Limited and The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada v The Attorney General for the Province of Ontario [1902] UKPC 46 , [1903] AC 73(12 November 1902)(on appeal from Canada)
  7. as approved by An Act for the settlement of certain questions between the Governments of Canada and Ontario respecting Indian Reserve Lands , S.C. 1924, c. 48 and The Indian Lands Act, 1924 , S.O. 1924, c. 15
  8. Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Act , S.C. 1988, c. 39 , with corresponding provincial approval in the Indian Lands Agreement Confirmation Act, 1989 , S.O. 1989, c. 26 (repealed in error by the Legislation Act, 2006, s. 98(3), as enacted by the Access to Justice Act, 2006 , S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F , and subsequently reenacted by the Indian Lands Agreement (1986) Confirmation Act, 2010 , S.O. 2010, c. 1, Sch. 10 )

Further reading