Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) facts for kids

Quick facts for kids Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: 8 October 2015 Judgment: 14 April 2016
Full case name	Harry Daniels, Gabriel Daniels, Leah Gardner, Terry Joudrey and Congress of Aboriginal Peoples v Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Attorney General of Canada
Citations	2016 SCC 12
Docket No.	35945
Prior history	APPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from , setting aside in part Daniels v Canada 2013 FC 6, [2013] 2 FCR 268 (8 January 2013)
Ruling	Appeal allowed in part and cross‑appeal dismissed.
Holding
"Indians" under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a broad term referring to all Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Rosalie Abella, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner, Clément Gascon, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by	Abella J

Daniels v Canada is an important case decided by Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2016, the Court ruled that Métis people and Indigenous people who are not officially registered as "status Indians" (sometimes called "non-status Indians") are indeed considered "Indians" under a part of Canada's main law, the Constitution Act, 1867. This part of the Constitution, known as section 91(24), gives the federal government the power to make laws about "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." The Court's decision means that the federal government has a responsibility for all these groups.

Who Was Involved in the Case?

This case involved several people and groups who wanted the federal government to recognize Métis and non-status Indians.

The Plaintiffs

The people and groups who brought the case to court were:

• Harry Daniels: A Métis leader from Saskatchewan. He passed away before the case was heard by the Supreme Court.
• Gabriel Daniels: Harry Daniels' son.
• Leah Gardner: An Indigenous person from Ontario who was not officially registered as a "status Indian."
• Terry Joudrey: An Indigenous person from Nova Scotia who was also not officially registered.
• Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: A national organization that represents the interests of Métis and non-status Indians.

The Defendants

The groups being sued were:

• Her Majesty the Queen: This represents the Canadian government.
• Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: The government minister responsible for Indigenous affairs at the time.
• Attorney General of Canada: The chief legal advisor to the Canadian government.

The Case in Lower Courts

The case started in a lower court called the Federal Court.

What Each Side Wanted

The plaintiffs asked the Federal Court to make three main declarations:

• That Métis and non-status Indians should be considered "Indians" under the Constitution Act, 1867.
• That the Queen (representing the government) had a special duty of trust, called a "fiduciary duty," towards them. This means the government must act in their best interests.
• That the federal government must talk with them (consult) about their rights and needs as Indigenous peoples.

The plaintiffs argued that Métis people were historically recognized as Indigenous. They also pointed out that non-status Indians are descendants of Indigenous people but are not covered by the Indian Act. They felt that the government's refusal to recognize these groups led to unfair treatment.

The defendants (the government) disagreed. They argued that there wasn't enough information to make these declarations. They also claimed that Métis had never been considered "Indians" and that "non-status Indians" weren't a recognized group. They denied any discrimination and worried that these declarations would just lead to more lawsuits.

The Federal Court's Decision

The Federal Court agreed with the first declaration. It said that Métis and non-status Indians are indeed "Indians" for the purpose of the Constitution Act, 1867. The court felt this decision matched what a group called the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had suggested.

The court explained that the original purpose of the Constitution Act, 1867 was to help Canada grow and develop. To do this, the government needed broad powers over all Indigenous peoples. Therefore, the power over "Indians" in section 91(24) was meant to cover all Indigenous groups, including the Métis. The court also noted that the definition of "Indian" in the Indian Act was narrower than the one in the Constitution.

However, the Federal Court did not agree to the other two declarations about fiduciary duty and consultation.

Appeals to Higher Courts

The Canadian government was not happy with the Federal Court's decision and appealed it.

• In 2013, the case went to the Federal Court of Appeal. This court agreed with the original decision that Métis were "Indians" but said that non-status Indians were not included.
• Finally, the case reached the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court heard the appeal in October 2015 and gave its final decision in April 2016.

The Supreme Court's Final Decision

In a decision that everyone on the court agreed with, the Supreme Court brought back the Federal Court's original ruling on the first issue. This meant that both Métis and non-status Indians are considered "Indians" under the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court said this was important because it settled a real and ongoing disagreement.

However, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that there was no real need to make the other two declarations (about fiduciary duty and consultation). This was because these issues were already clear in existing Canadian law.

• Previous Supreme Court cases had already established that the Canadian government has a special trust relationship (fiduciary duty) with all Indigenous peoples, including Métis.
• Other cases had also already confirmed that the government has a duty to consult with Indigenous groups when their rights might be affected.

The Court also clarified that even though the federal government has power over these groups, it doesn't automatically mean that provincial laws about them are invalid. Both levels of government can have laws that work together.

What This Decision Means

The Supreme Court's decision in Daniels v Canada is very important for many Indigenous people in Canada. It means that the federal government now clearly has a responsibility for Métis people and for Indigenous people who are not officially registered as "status Indians."

This ruling could affect hundreds of thousands of people who identify as Métis or as non-status Indians. It might also encourage some Indigenous people living on reserves to consider moving off-reserve, knowing that the federal government still has a responsibility towards them.