Reference Re an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children Youth and Families 2024 SCC 5

What does the Supreme Court decision mean for Métis government and citizens in Saskatchewan?

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in [Translated] Reference Re an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children Youth and Families 2024 SCC 5 (“the Decision”). The Court was tasked with answering the question: “is the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, Youth and Families (the “Act”) ultra vires (beyond the power of) the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution of Canada?

Departing from the conclusion of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which held that the reference question was constitutional, except for ss. 21 and 22(3), which were not, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act as a whole fall within Parliament’s exclusive legislative authority for First Nations, Inuit and Métis under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Further, the Court found that the Act codified Parliament’s affirmation that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 includes a right of self-government in relation to child, youth and family services setting out Parliament’s understanding of specific section 35 rights. While the affirmations are not final determinations on the scope of section 35, they do have legal effect and bind the Crown’s future conduct. The Crown can no longer deny the existence of this right.

What does that mean for Canada?

The outcome of the Decision is an affirmation of what Canada committed to in 2016 when its government made a commitment internationally to support and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (“UNDRIP”) “without qualification”. The Court provided its most substantive discussion on UNDRIP to date, which bodes well for future judicial consideration of UNDRIP to inform the interpretation of section 35 and the implementation of its Articles.

The Court strongly endorsed the Act as a form of “legislative reconciliation”, referring to how the Act weaves the affirmation of inherent rights, mechanisms for the exercise of FIRST Nations, Inuit and Métis legislative authority, federal minimum national standards, and international minimum standards together. Importantly, the Decision also identified the Act does not purport to be the source of these rights but proceeds on the premise that these rights exist independently.

What does the Decision mean for the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (“MN-S”)?

Saskatchewan will be impacted largely the same as every province or territory in the country. The federal government has recognized the MN-S as the Indigenous Governing Body (“IGB”) for the purposes of the Act for Saskatchewan. MN-S and its citizens will determine what their child welfare law, governance structure, policy and service systems will be – including how they will be developed and implemented. This includes what the pace, scope, and implementation of services will be over time.

In sum, the Decision will assist in providing agency to Indigenous, Inuit, and Métis people to control Child and Family Services for their communities. For Saskatchewan, MN-S assumes jurisdiction over their registered citizens and may seek to expand their role into other areas of justice in the future.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

 

About the Author

Kristian St. Onge is a Student at Law at Robertson Stromberg LLP. He received his Juris Doctor in 2023 and holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree in Finance with distinction from Edward’s School of Business at the University of Saskatchewan.

Related News and Articles

Q&A: Share and share alike. Except nothing’s on paper

Question: I farm with a family member and we don’t really have a formal ownership structure. We consider everything 50/50. Is there anything I should do to make sure we are on the same page?Answer: First off, you don’t want to start a family fight. It’s probably not...

read more

Q&A: Collecting loans from friends

Question: I loaned some money to a friend and they won’t pay it back. What timelines should I be aware of, to make sure I don’t lose my chance to sue?Answer: If you lent money to a friend, you cannot wait forever to start a lawsuit. If you both agreed they would pay...

read more

Marinko Jelovic Joins Robertson Stromberg Partnership

Congratulations to Marinko Jelovic who became Robertson Stromberg's newest partner on January 1, 2019.  Marinko joined Robertson Stromberg as an articling student and, since his call to the bar in  2012, has been an important member of the corporate/commercial law...

read more

Robertson Stromberg Ranked by Chambers and Partners

Robertson Stromberg has been ranked as a leading firm by Chambers and Partners. The 2019 Chambers Canada lists Robertson Stromberg in the Corporate/Commercial - Saskatchewan category.  Also awarded Leading Lawyer rankings are Christopher Donald, Q.C. and Leslie...

read more

Carlson v. Carlson Estate case comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Carlson v. Carlson Estate, 2018 SKQB 196. Carlson reminds us of the importance of preserving evidence of just how “voluntary” a will is. If, in contrast, a particular beneficiary of the will is seen...

read more

Case Comment Klassen v. Wiers Estate

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Klassen v. Estate of John Arnold Wiers, 2018 SKQB 32, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 598. Klassen was a decision which turned on a careful assembling of the evidence. While there was no single piece of magic...

read more

Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate Case Comment

This article offers an overview of the 2018 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Karpinski v. Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56. Karpinski offers helpful reminders to parties who wish to challenge a Will based on a concern that the testator was subjected to undue...

read more

Legal “Standing” to Challenge a Will

This articles offers an overview of the 2018 Court of Appeal decision in Olson v. Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64. Olson offers an important reminder to parties involved in estate litigation. Namely, one should always check to make sure you have the legal “standing” to...

read more

Negligent but not Liable

One of the key ways in which risk is allocated on a construction project is through insurance, typically in the form of builder’s risk, course of construction, or “all-risk” property policies. In most cases, the responsibility for obtaining insurance coverage is set...

read more

Case comment on Figley v. Figley

This article provides a Saskatchewan estate litigation update, offering a brief synopsis of the 2018 Saskatchewan decision in Figley v. Figley, 2018 SKQB 102, 21 C.P.C. (8th) 149. Figley v. Figley reminds estate litigators of the important “wills exception” to...

read more
Share This
Area of ExpertiseReference Re an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children Youth and Families 2024 SCC 5