Harry Daniels Court File

__NOTITLE__

Name of document:

Harry Daniels Court File

Type of document:

Court Case

Summary of the data:

The "Harry Daniels Case" was launched in 1999 by a prominent Métis leader, Harry Daniels, however it did not go to trial until 2011. This Federal Court of Canada case, ruled that Métis people and non-status Indians (MNSI) are "Indians" under s 91(24) of the British North America (BNA) Act (now Constitution Act, 1867) and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. Section 91(24) is the following:

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

...

24. Indians, and Lands reserved.

In brief, the Plaintiffs argued first that, "Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" within the meaning of the expression "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867" (Daniels v. Canada para. 3). Second, that the Canadian government "owes fiduciary duty to Métis and non-status Indians and Aboriginal people," and finally that both "Métis and non-status Indian people of Canada have the right to be consulted and negotiated with, in good faith, by the federal government on a collective basis through representatives of their choice, respecting all their rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal peoples" (Daniels v. Canada para. 3). These arguments were based on a number of things, firstly that the Méits in Rupert's Land and Northwest Territories were included as "aborigines" and "jurisdiction over them was transferred to the federal government" and Métis were considered as distinct subgroup of Aboriginal peoples (Daniels v. Canada para. 4). Secondly, that non-status Indians are Aboriginal people who have not claimed status but have Aboriginal ancestors and are "accepted by an Indian community, or branch of council of an Indian association or organization" (Daniels v. Canada para. 4). Finally, as a result of the Federal government's unwillingness to recognize MNSIs as 'Indian' under s 91(24) "they have suffered deprivations and discrimination in the nature of: lack of access to health care, education and other benefits available to status indians; lack of access to material and cultural benefit; being subjected to criminal prosecutions for exercising Aboriginal rights to hunt, trap, fish and gather on public lands; and being deprived of federal government negotiations on matters of Aboriginal rights and agreements" (Daniels v. Canada para. 4).

In brief, the Defendants argued that there were insufficient facts for a declaration to be made and also that Métis people were never considered 'Indians'. Secondly, they argued that there is no such group known as 'non-status Indians' and denied allegations of discrimination. Finally, the Defendants argued that issuing any declarations would result in more litigation.

The Federal Court ultimately concluded that the term 'Indian' in s 91(24) is much broader then it is defined in the Indian Act. Secondly, the Court concluded that the Constitution Act, 1867 served to further the objectives of Confederation, which were to acquire, develop and settle "the territories of Ontario and Quebec as well as creat[e] a stable and viable British North America..." (Daniels v. Canada para 166). Additionally, this Section "enabled the central government to peacefully extinguish Aboriginal title, protect Aboriginal interests and therefore ensure the peaceful environment required for newcomer settlement and westward expansion" (Daniels v. Canada para 166). According to the court file, "[t]he resolution of constitutional responsibility has the potential to bring clarity to the respective responsibilities of the different levels of government" (Daniels v. Canada para 110). Finally, the Federal Court found that Métis were considered even as early as 1818 as being 'Indian' in the widest sense.

As a result, the Federal Court agreed to the first declaration that, "Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians within the meaning of the expression "Indians and lands reserved for Indians" in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and dismissed the other two (Daniels v. Canada para. 3). Although this court case pertains to the Manitoban/Prairie Métis, it is a precedence setting case that impacts Aboriginal peoples, specifically Métis and non-status Indians.

The Daniels case was appealed a number of times and was finally heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 8th 2015. On April 14th 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada declared that Métis and non-Status Indians are 'Indians' under s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The impact of this case on Red Sky Méits Independent Nation (RSMIN) is yet to be ascertained. This case has the potential to provide legal rights to the Métis as Aboriginal people and allows the Federal Government to deal directly with Métis communities.

Important dates mentioned in the document:

January 8, 2013: Federal Court of Canada reached its decision.
April 17, 2014: Federal Court of Appeal reached its decision.
October 8, 2015: Supreme Court of Canada heard the Daniels case.
April 14, 2016: Supreme Court of Canada handed down Daniels Decision.

Important people discussed in the document:

The Plaintiffs:
Harry Daniels (Métis)
Gabriel Daniels (Harry's son, Métis)
Leah Gardner (non-status Indian from Ontario)
Terry Joudrey (non-status Indian from Nova Scotia)
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

The Defendants:
Her Majesty the Queen represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Attorney General of Canada

Specific location(s) mentioned in the document (if applicable):

N/A

Non-specific location(s) mentioned in the document (if applicable):

N/A

Specific event(s) identified in the document (if applicable):

N/A

Relevant citations:

Daniels v. Canada, 2013 FC 6, M. Phelan. Web. 7 March 2016.

Was the information found online (yes/no)?:

Yes.

Document links and URLs (if applicable):

Daniels v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), Supreme Court Judgement

Date of access:

Monday March 7, 2016

Webmaster if identified (for online documents only):

Federal Court (Canada) Website

If you would like to contribute to this page or have more information please see How to Submit Changes and New Stories.