AB v Cunningham, 2011 Facts Ratio Analysis Status Indians being prohibited Metis as a group have rights Deferential definition for what from Metis settlements; difference protected by the courts; not counts as ameliorative under the in benefits afforded to Indians derivative of Indian so need to 15(2) equality provision of the and Metis preserve this culture as well. Charter Metis claimants challenged Metis Discrimination for purpose of MSA not aimed at broadly helping Settlement Act which terminates cultural preservation of Metis Metis people but preserving their membership in Metis Settlements justified, even if to the culture it’s for members who register as detriment of members Status Indians under Indian Act SCC: exclusion of Status Indians from Metis membership allowed due to 15(2) of Charter Daniels v Canada, 2016 Facts Ratio Analysis Metis and Non-Status Indians Alters Metis rights-bearer test for Metis were historically seek Declarations: definition under s91(24). considered Indians; federal ‘Indians’ Recognition as government had been willing to “Indians” under s91(24) of the 2 defs of All natives as recognize Metis as Indians “Indians”: whenever it was convenient to do Constitution per 91(24) inc Metis and Inuit, That Federal Crown owes OR Indian bands not inc other so fiduciary duty to Metis and Indigenous (Metis, Inuit) Non-Status Prov legislation that impacts Look to other provisions of CA82 Metis and Non-Status have Metis not inherently (s37(7)) which state Indian, Inuit, ultra vires right to be consulted and just because Indians are federal, Metis are Aboriginal ppl; negotiated with so long as do not impair core of jurisprudence also supports Head of conclusion “Indian Power” SCC: 1st declaration given, 2nd and 3rd deemed settled law already.
AB v Cunningham, 2011 Facts Ratio Analysis Status Indians being prohibited from Metis settlements; difference in benefits afforded to Indians and Metis Metis claimants challenged Metis Settlement Act which terminates membership in Metis Settlements for members who register as Status Indians under Indian Act SCC: exclusion of Status Indians from Metis membership allowed due to 15(2) of Charter Metis as a group have rights protected by the courts; not derivative of Indian so need to preserve this culture as well. Discrimination for purpose of cultural preservation of Metis justified, even if it’s to the detriment of members Deferential definition for what counts as ameliorative under the 15(2) equality provision of the Charter MSA not aimed at broadly helping Metis people but preserving their culture Daniels v Canada, 2016 Facts Ratio Analysis Metis and Non-Status Indians seek Declarations: Recognition as “Indians” under s91(24) of the Constitution That Federal Crown owes fiduciary duty to Metis and Non-Status Metis and Non-Status have right to be consulted and negotiated with SCC: 1st declaration given, 2nd and 3rd deemed settled law already. Alters Metis rights-bearer test for ‘Indians’ definition under s91(24). 2 defs of “Indians”: All natives as per 91(24) inc Metis and Inuit, OR Indian bands not inc other Indigenous (Metis, Inuit) Prov legislation that impacts Metis not inherently ultra vires just because Indians are federal, so long as do not impair core of “Indian Head of Power” Metis were historically considered Indians; federal government had been willing to recognize Metis as Indians whenever it was convenient to do so Look to other provisions of CA82 (s37(7)) which state Indian, Inuit, Metis are Aboriginal ppl; jurisprudence also supports conclusion