The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the federal government acted dishonestly in its dealings with an Alberta indigenous community, relating to an 1877 treaty, and found that declaratory relief could be considered a viable recourse.
The case pertains to the Blood Tribe, part of the larger Blackfoot Confederacy of First Nations. The Crown and the Blackfoot Confederacy had established a treaty in 1877, known as Treaty No. 7. As per the treaty, Blood Tribe No.148 was outlined to serve as the home for the Blood Tribe, marking it as the largest First Nation reservation in Canada.
The treaty outlined a distinct method for calculating the size of the reservation, allotting one square mile of land for every five-person family. Subsequent research by Blackfoot researchers raised suspicion that the size of the reservation was not in alignment with the formula. Despite this revelation, the Canadian Ministry of Indian Affairs remained unresponsive to negotiation attempts.
The core dispute was centered around the standing of the Blood Tribe to bring forth this case. The solution came in the form of constitutional amendments made by Canada in 1982. The amendments effectively created a new cause of action for treaty disputes. The Court, however, argued that the newly created section did not create a novel cause of action for cases of treaty disputes. They proposed that the cause of action came directly from the treaty itself, thereby presenting the Blood Tribe with an opportunity to seek declaratory relief.
According to the Court:
“Before this Court, the Crown concedes its breach of the treaty and that a declaration may be an appropriate remedy. Accordingly, it could be said the Crown no longer has an interest in opposing the declaration sought with respect to the final criteria for declaratory relief. I am not persuaded that this concession, at the eleventh hour of this litigation and in the context of the Crown’s vigorous opposition to any relief in these proceedings, should now prevent this Court from issuing a declaration.”
This in-depth exploration of the complex issue of treaty disputes could potentially pave the way for future similar cases involving indigenous communities in Canada.