The current problems that surround Aboriginal title is a result of the historical development that transpired when European colonizers decided to claim land ownership over Canada. In the process of acquiring sovereignty over territories, the British Crown infringed on the land rights of Aboriginal people. The Europeans took complete control over the land by depriving Aboriginal people’s right to self-determination and land. The Canadian government has recently come to recognize past injustices and abuses against Aboriginal people. However, there is still a long way to go in reconciling with Aboriginal people. This is evident in the recent the Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario [2014] 2 S.C.R case as the verdict made by the Supreme Court
…show more content…
They have maintained traditional territory in the Keewatin area of Northwestern Ontario and Eastern Manitoba. In 1873, the Ojibway entered into Treaty 3 with Canada that includes vast areas of modern Northwestern Ontario. Treaty 3 gave the Crown ownership of Ojibwa’s territory except for certain reserved lands in exchange for the Ojibway to have “the right to harvest the non-reserve lands” until the land is taken up or used up for settlement. Under Treaty 3, Grassy Narrows First Nations are entitled to hunt and fish within their territory but have to surrender the land when it comes to taking up “for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes” by the Government of Canada.
In 1997, the province of Ontario issues a forestry license to a large pulp and paper manufacturer to clear-cut lands for forestry operation in the Keewatin area of the Treaty 3 land. In 2005, Grassy Narrows challenged this license for violating Treaty 3 harvesting rights. Subsequently, the trial judge established that taking up the clause in Treaty 3 requires a two-step process to determine whether Ontario could limit harvesting rights without the approval of the federal government. The appellant Grassy Narrows argued that Ontario cannot take up Treaty 3 lands since it involved federal jurisdiction under …show more content…
109, 92(5) and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. Although the SCC recognized that Treaty 3 was signed with by the federal government in 1873, the Court asserted that an agreement should be “between the Ojibway and the Crown.” The Court also found that under s. 109, 92(1) and 92A, Ontario has the constitutional “power to manage and sell those lands as well as make laws in relation to the resources on or under those lands.” Furthermore, the Court relied on s. 91(24) which established that the federal government does not have “the authority to take over provincial lands for provincial purposes.” The two-step process that requires federal approval and supervision was found to be not applicable to the Keewatin area for provincial purposes by Treaty 3. Lastly, the Court recognized that the descendants of Ojibway signed onto the legislation after understanding the terms and confirming to the Treaty that states Ontario’s right to take up land. The Supreme Court considered the Tsilhqot’in decision and the criteria used in Sparrow/Badger analysis of s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Thus, the Court’s affirmed to these legal precedents and took into consideration the historical context of treaty negotiations when it established that only Ontario has the constitutional “power to take up lands in Keewatin area under Treaty 3 for provincially regulated purposes such as forestry [and
They have maintained traditional territory in the Keewatin area of Northwestern Ontario and Eastern Manitoba. In 1873, the Ojibway entered into Treaty 3 with Canada that includes vast areas of modern Northwestern Ontario. Treaty 3 gave the Crown ownership of Ojibwa’s territory except for certain reserved lands in exchange for the Ojibway to have “the right to harvest the non-reserve lands” until the land is taken up or used up for settlement. Under Treaty 3, Grassy Narrows First Nations are entitled to hunt and fish within their territory but have to surrender the land when it comes to taking up “for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes” by the Government of Canada.
In 1997, the province of Ontario issues a forestry license to a large pulp and paper manufacturer to clear-cut lands for forestry operation in the Keewatin area of the Treaty 3 land. In 2005, Grassy Narrows challenged this license for violating Treaty 3 harvesting rights. Subsequently, the trial judge established that taking up the clause in Treaty 3 requires a two-step process to determine whether Ontario could limit harvesting rights without the approval of the federal government. The appellant Grassy Narrows argued that Ontario cannot take up Treaty 3 lands since it involved federal jurisdiction under …show more content…
109, 92(5) and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. Although the SCC recognized that Treaty 3 was signed with by the federal government in 1873, the Court asserted that an agreement should be “between the Ojibway and the Crown.” The Court also found that under s. 109, 92(1) and 92A, Ontario has the constitutional “power to manage and sell those lands as well as make laws in relation to the resources on or under those lands.” Furthermore, the Court relied on s. 91(24) which established that the federal government does not have “the authority to take over provincial lands for provincial purposes.” The two-step process that requires federal approval and supervision was found to be not applicable to the Keewatin area for provincial purposes by Treaty 3. Lastly, the Court recognized that the descendants of Ojibway signed onto the legislation after understanding the terms and confirming to the Treaty that states Ontario’s right to take up land. The Supreme Court considered the Tsilhqot’in decision and the criteria used in Sparrow/Badger analysis of s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Thus, the Court’s affirmed to these legal precedents and took into consideration the historical context of treaty negotiations when it established that only Ontario has the constitutional “power to take up lands in Keewatin area under Treaty 3 for provincially regulated purposes such as forestry [and