Where Can an Aboriginal Rights Holder Exercise Their Rights? Reflections From R. v. Desautel

Authors

Senwung Luk, Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP

Abstract

In the R. v. Desautel decision, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that an Indigenous person resident in the United States can have Aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the geographical dimensions of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights. Contrary to popular perception, and to some decided cases, the Van der Peet framework does not come with geographical limits. This can be seen in a survey of the case law. Rather, the absence of such limits, and the absence of conflicts between First Nations about the practice of Aboriginal rights in the territories of others, can be seen as evidence of the continual functioning of Indigenous legal orders.

Citation Information

Luk, Senwung. "Where Can an Aboriginal Rights Holder Exercise Their Rights? Reflections From R. v. Desautel." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 108. (2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1435
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol108/iss1/4

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Desautel"].

2 Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.

3 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Van der Peet"].

4 In this paper, I will use the term "Aboriginal" when describing concepts arising from s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. I use "Indigenous" generally to describe the people and communities who are Indigenous to the land now called Canada and have been subject to European colonization. However, because s. 35(1) uses the term "Aboriginal" to describe the rights it guarantees, and the peoples to whom those rights belong, I will still use the term "Aboriginal" for the sake of consistency with the text of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the case law interpreting that text.

5 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 3 (S.C.C.).

6 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

7 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

8 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out that Washington State was not made a state until 1889.

9 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 5 (S.C.C.).

10 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 5 (S.C.C.).

11 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 12 (S.C.C.).

12 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 33 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/33/12/20

13 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at paras. 44, 46 (S.C.C.).

14 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para. 63 (S.C.C.).

15 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para. 134 (S.C.C.).

16 For another insightful view on R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 (S.C.C.), please see Kent McNeil & Kerry Wilkins, "Welcome Home: Aboriginal Rights Law after Desautel", forthcoming.

17 See, for example, Chilwin C. Cheng, "Touring the Museum: A Comment on R. v. Van der Peet, (1997) 55 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 419 at 434.

18 See Russel Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, "The Supreme Court's Van der Peet Trilogy: Naive Imperialism and Ropes of Sand" (1997) 42 McGill L.J. 993.

19 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at paras. 12, 63 (S.C.C.).

20 Drew v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Government Services and Lands), [2006] N.J. No. 270, 2006 NLCA 53 (N.L.C.A.) [hereinafter "Drew"].

21 Drew v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Government Services and Lands), [2006] N.J. No. 270, 2006 NLCA 53 at paras. 24-41 (N.L.C.A.).

22 Drew v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Government Services and Lands), [2006] N.J. No. 270, 2006 NLCA 53 at para. 81 (N.L.C.A.).

23 Newfoundland (Minister of Government Services and Lands) v. Drew, [2003] N.J. No. 177, 2003 NLSCTD 105 at para. 654 (N.L.T.D.).

24 R. v. Desautel, [2021] S.C.J. No. 17, 2021 SCC 17 at para. 63 (S.C.C.).

25 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1093/ml/77.2.321

26 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para. 6 (S.C.C.). The location of the traditional territory is not discussed in the reasons.

27 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para. 6 (S.C.C.). The location of the actus is not described in the reasons.

28 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para. 6 (S.C.C.). The location of the residence of the claimant is not described in the reasons.

29 R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] S.C.J. No. 78, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 (S.C.C.).

30 R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] S.C.J. No. 78, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 (S.C.C.). The location of the traditional territory is not described in the reasons.

31 R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] S.C.J. No. 78, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

32 The location of the residence of the claimant is not described in the reasons.

33 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 (S.C.C.).

34 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 at para. 93 (S.C.C.).

35 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

36 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 (S.C.C.). The location of the residence of the claimant is not described in the reasons.

37 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2901-7_9

38 The location of the traditional territory is not specified in the reasons, but the nationality of the claimant was found to be Mohawk.

39 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03259514

40 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 5 (S.C.C.).

41 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1177/003463739609300111

42 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 at para. 56 (S.C.C.).

43 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1177/003463739609300111

44 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 at para. 6 (S.C.C.).

45 Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - MNR), [2001] S.C.J. No. 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 (S.C.C.).

46 Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - MNR), [2001] S.C.J. No. 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 at para. 41 (S.C.C.).

47 Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - MNR), [2001] S.C.J. No. 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

48 Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - MNR), [2001] S.C.J. No. 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

49 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] S.C.J. No. 54, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 (S.C.C.).

50 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] S.C.J. No. 54, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

51 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] S.C.J. No. 54, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 at paras. 4, 8 (S.C.C.).

52 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] S.C.J. No. 54, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 at paras. 6, 8 (S.C.C.). The reasons did not note the residence of Sappier and Polchies but did note that Gray lived on Pabineau First Nation.

53 Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 56, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 535 (S.C.C.).

54 Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 56, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 535 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

55 Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 56, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 535 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

56 The residences of the claimants were not specifically noted in the reasons.

57 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para. 6 (S.C.C.).

58 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] S.C.J. No. 77, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at paras. 64-65 (S.C.C.).

59 R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] S.C.J. No. 78, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "NTC Smokehouse"].

60 R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] S.C.J. No. 78, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

61 R. v. NTC Smokehouse Ltd., [1996] S.C.J. No. 78, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 672 at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

62 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Gladstone"].

63 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 at paras. 2-3 (S.C.C.).

64 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 at para. 27 (S.C.C.).

65 R. v. Gladstone, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723 at para. 93 (S.C.C.). Justice La Forest also quoted the trial judge's characterization of Mr. Katsu Hirose, owner of Seaborn Enterprises Ltd., as a "foreign buyer", presumably based on his Japanese-language name. Over 30 years later, Seaborn Enterprises is still a going concern, with two stores in Vancouver, one in Toronto and one in Japan. See online: http://www.seaborn.ca/company.

66 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Adams"].

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03259514

67 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Côté"].

68 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 at para. 31 (S.C.C.).

69 R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 at para. 35 (S.C.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.139.2.35

70 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 32 (S.C.C.).

71 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 26 (S.C.C.), quoted in R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 at para. 38 (S.C.C.) [emphasis in original].

https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199601000-00032

72 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 27 (S.C.C.).

73 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 28 (S.C.C.).

74 See Kent McNeil, "Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights: What's The Connection?" (1997) 36 Alta. L. Rev. 117 at 127 for further discussion of the idea of "nomadism" among Indigenous peoples in Canada.

75 R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 30 (S.C.C.) [Emphasis added].

76 See R. v. Adams, [1996] S.C.J. No. 87, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101 at para. 26 (S.C.C.); quoted in R. v. Côté, [1996] S.C.J. No. 93, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139 at para. 38 (S.C.C.). For a similar reading of R. v. Adams and R. v. Côté, see McNeil, "Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal Rights: What's The Connection?" (1997) 36 Alta. L. Rev. 117 at 121-122.

77 Mitchell v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue - MNR), [2001] S.C.J. No. 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911 (S.C.C.).

78 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] S.C.J. No. 54, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 (S.C.C.).

79 R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray, [2006] S.C.J. No. 54, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 686 at paras. 4, 8 (S.C.C.).

80 It may be that the Court has come to a different conclusion with respect to site-specificity when it comes to Métis rights: see R. v. Powley, [2003] S.C.J. No. 43, 2003 SCC 43 at para. 19 (S.C.C.).

81 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] S.C.J. No. 108, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 (S.C.C.).

82 R. v. Shipman, [2007] O.J. No. 1716, 85 O.R. (3d) 585 (Ont. C.A.) R. v. Meshake, [2007] O.J. No. 1714, 85 O.R. (3d) 575 (Ont. C.A.).

83 R. v. Ireland, [1990] O.J. No. 2365, 1 O.R. (3d) 577 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

84 See, for example, Dean M. Jacobs & Victor P. Lytwyn, "Naagan ge bezhig emkwaan: A Dish with One Spoon Reconsidered" (2020) 112 Ontario History at 191-210, online: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1072237ar.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1072237ar

85 Sambaa K'e Dene Band v. Duncan, [2012] F.C.J. No. 216, 2012 FC 204 (F.C.) Enge v. Northwest Territories (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North Slave Region), [2013] N.W.T.J. No. 38, 2013 NWTSC 33 (N.W.T.S.C.).