The Federal Government in on track to legalize marijuana later this year, with Bill C-45 making its way through the Senate. However, there are many questions still unanswered as to the implementation of this piece of legislation, not least of which is how the sale of marijuana will operate in First Nations communities. Will provincial law apply, or can Indigenous people take full responsibility for its management?
Indigenous lawyer Michel Nolet was recently featured in an article in the Law Times about the developing class action related to the “Indian hospitals”. These were operational in Canada between 1945 and 1981, and it is alleged that many Indigenous people suffered abuse and mistreatment at these institutions.
The civil remedies available to deal with the problem of “revenge porn” are still in their early stages of development in Ontario. By contrast, the principles applicable to these cases have been settled for quite some time in Quebec. This post looks compares Ontario privacy law with the law in Quebec.
What do construction licensing laws mean for Indigenous communities? In our latest Indigenous Law blog post, Stephane Serafin looks at licensing laws across Canada and their impact on First Nations communities.
In a previous blog post, we sought to give our readers an overview of the relationship between provincial laws of general application and the federal jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” set out in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Our very own Lanise Hayes was recently quoted in the Law Times editorial “Words versus actions”. The piece is about the federal bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) related to the spiritual significance of a proposed development site. The applicants, the members of the Ktunaxa Nation, challenged a provincial minister’s decision to approve the project on the basis of both a section 35 duty to consult and the right to freedom of conscience and religion enshrined in section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Life as an Indigenous person in Canada involves a number of particular challenges that may not be shared with non-Indigenous Canadians.
Much has been written on the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (“Clyde River”), and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Chippewas”) since they were released in late July 2017. In short, the decisions affirm the possibility that hearings and consultations conducted by the National Energy Board (the “NEB”) might satisfy the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.
Last week, the federal government announced changes to its Own-Source Revenue (“OSR”) Policy held in relation to self-governing First Nations. Specifically, the government declared a moratorium of “up to three years” on OSR claw-backs.