Supreme Court and Relationship

Daniels v Canada: This case represents another chapter in the pursuit of reconciliation and redress in that relationship, she wrote in Daniels v, according to Toronto Star. Canada, a landmark case that Métis and non-status Indians — First Nations people who are not entitled to be registered under the Indian Act, and may or may not identify with a particular First Nation — have been fighting for since 1999. As the curtain opens wider and wider on the history of Canada relationship with its indigenous peoples, inequities are increasingly revealed and remedies urgently sought, Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in a short but powerfully worded 9-0 decision delivered Thursday. The Supreme Court ruled that Indians in Sec. 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867 — which lists the areas over which the Canadian government has sole jurisdiction — does not just refer to First Nations with registered Indian status and Inuit peoples, but to all aboriginal peoples in Canada, including Métis and non-status Indians. The Supreme Court recognizes Sec. 91 does not create a duty to legislate, but including them in its scope has the undeniably salutary benefit of ending a jurisdictional tug-of-war in which these groups were left wondering about where to turn to for policy redress, Abella wrote. There were 213,900 non-status Indians and 451,785 Métis people in Canada counted in the 2011 Census, but they have often been relegated to what Abella described as a jurisdictional wasteland between provinces and the federal government when it comes to the provision of services, or holding someone to account for their absence. (www.immigrantscanada.com). As reported in the news.