Related Court Ruling
The Labrador Metis Nation has supported other Aboriginal groups in their battles for rights, and has been referenced in several court cases. Possibly one of the most important Aboriginal cases won recently is the Powley Case, where two Metis men from Souix St. Marie, Ontario, shot a bull moose out of season and won an Aboriginal right to hunt, after nearly ten years of fighting.
Court Rulings can be found at www.canlii.org
More information on the Powley Decision can be found at www.powleydecision.com
Court Rulings can be found at www.canlii.org
More information on the Powley Decision can be found at www.powleydecision.com
The Powley Decision
R. v. Powley
2003 SCC 43 (CanLII) 2003-09-19
Canada -- Supreme Court of Canada
The following was stated in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Ruling, and referenced the Powley Decision's reference to the LMN:
[8] In the Powley case (supra) the Supreme Court of Canada at paragraph 10 in relation to the term "Metis", and relying on the reference in the 1996 Canadian Government Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: [Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa, 1996)]; the Royal Commission, stated:
"The term "Metis" in s. 35 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, way of life, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears. Metis communities evolved and flourished prior to the entrenchment of European control, when the influence of European settlers and political institutions became pre-eminent."
[9] And further that:
"The French referred to the fur trade as coureurs de bois (forest runners) and bois brules (burnt-wood people) in recognition of their wilderness occupations and their dark complexions. The Labrador Metis (whose culture had early roots) were originally called "livyers" or "settlers", those who remained in the fishing settlements year-round rather than returning periodically to Europe or Newfoundland. The Cree people expressed the Metis character in term Otepayemsuak, meaning the "independent ones". [Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 4 (Ottawa: the Commission, 1996), at pp. 199-200 ("RCAP Report").]
[10] What is significant by reference to the Labrador Metis is the definitive language used by the Supreme Court of Canada. It, no doubt gave great deference to the Royal Commission in relying on its references as to who identified as Metis people. The Supreme Court of Canada, if it felt uncertain; could have, but did not, use any conditional terms in its reference to Metis people in Labrador. It began by expressly using the grammatical definite article "the" to begin its reference to "The Labrador Metis."
[11] Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) had this to say on the use of the article "the":
"The: An article which particularizes the subject spoken of. "Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the articles 'a' and 'the'. The most unlettered persons understand that 'a' is indefinite, but 'the' refers to a certain object."
[12] In fully considering the Powley case it is necessary to consider the references in that case to the report of the Royal Commission as it relates to the Labrador Metis.
[13] The Royal Commission Report in its Volume 1, Looking Forward, Looking Back under the heading "A Note About Terminology" when referencing the term Metis stated:
"Our use of the term Métis is consistent with our conception of Aboriginal people as described above. We refer to the Métis as distinct Aboriginal people whose early ancestors were of mixed heritage (First Nations, or Inuit in th case of the Labrador Métis, and European) and who associate themselves with a culture that is distinctly Métis. The more specific term Métis Nation is used to refer to Métis people who identify themselves as a nation with historical roots in the Canadian west. Our use of the terms Métis and Métis Nation is discussed in some detail in Volume 4, Chapter 5."
[14] Once again a degree of certainty attaches to the use of the designation "Labrador Metis." It must be recognized that a Royal Commission has the very broad mandate to inquire into and hear from numerous sources on the subject of its mandate before arriving at its conclusions or choosing the language it deemed appropriate to present its report. This was certainly not an unsophisticated document generated by unlettered individuals.
[15] In Volume 4 at Chapter 5 of the Royal Commission Report (supra) at paragraph 1.3 under the heading "The Metis Nation and the Labrador Metis" the authors state that:
"Although we have less information about the Métis people of Labrador, we believe that they are probably also in a position to exercise the rights and powers of nationhood. Certainly, the Labrador Métis community exhibits the historical rootedness, social cohesiveness and cultural self-consciousness that are essential to nationhood, and they are developing a political organization that will allow them to engage in effective nation-to-nation negotiation and to exercise self-government. While the way of life of the Labrador Métis is very similar to that of Labrador Inuit and Innu, the Métis culture is sufficiently distinct to mark them as a unique people, and in our view they are likely to be accorded nation status under the recognition policy we propose."
[16] What is significant here is the certainty that the Royal Commission puts on the historical rootedness of the Labrador Metis and the Royal Commission's recognition of them as a culturally unique people.
[17] While the Royal Commission Report at paragraph 1.4 of Chapter 5 of Volume 4 makes it clear that it is ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada which decides the legal definition of Metis it is hard to ignore the fact that perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada's specific reference to the Labrador Metis was setting the stage for just that in Powley (supra). This is especially so since that Court referred specifically to the Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples. At the very least it was clear notice that the Labrador Metis were a people poised for such recognition and nationhood.
2003 SCC 43 (CanLII) 2003-09-19
Canada -- Supreme Court of Canada
The following was stated in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Ruling, and referenced the Powley Decision's reference to the LMN:
[8] In the Powley case (supra) the Supreme Court of Canada at paragraph 10 in relation to the term "Metis", and relying on the reference in the 1996 Canadian Government Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: [Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa, 1996)]; the Royal Commission, stated:
"The term "Metis" in s. 35 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, way of life, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears. Metis communities evolved and flourished prior to the entrenchment of European control, when the influence of European settlers and political institutions became pre-eminent."
[9] And further that:
"The French referred to the fur trade as coureurs de bois (forest runners) and bois brules (burnt-wood people) in recognition of their wilderness occupations and their dark complexions. The Labrador Metis (whose culture had early roots) were originally called "livyers" or "settlers", those who remained in the fishing settlements year-round rather than returning periodically to Europe or Newfoundland. The Cree people expressed the Metis character in term Otepayemsuak, meaning the "independent ones". [Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 4 (Ottawa: the Commission, 1996), at pp. 199-200 ("RCAP Report").]
[10] What is significant by reference to the Labrador Metis is the definitive language used by the Supreme Court of Canada. It, no doubt gave great deference to the Royal Commission in relying on its references as to who identified as Metis people. The Supreme Court of Canada, if it felt uncertain; could have, but did not, use any conditional terms in its reference to Metis people in Labrador. It began by expressly using the grammatical definite article "the" to begin its reference to "The Labrador Metis."
[11] Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) had this to say on the use of the article "the":
"The: An article which particularizes the subject spoken of. "Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the articles 'a' and 'the'. The most unlettered persons understand that 'a' is indefinite, but 'the' refers to a certain object."
[12] In fully considering the Powley case it is necessary to consider the references in that case to the report of the Royal Commission as it relates to the Labrador Metis.
[13] The Royal Commission Report in its Volume 1, Looking Forward, Looking Back under the heading "A Note About Terminology" when referencing the term Metis stated:
"Our use of the term Métis is consistent with our conception of Aboriginal people as described above. We refer to the Métis as distinct Aboriginal people whose early ancestors were of mixed heritage (First Nations, or Inuit in th case of the Labrador Métis, and European) and who associate themselves with a culture that is distinctly Métis. The more specific term Métis Nation is used to refer to Métis people who identify themselves as a nation with historical roots in the Canadian west. Our use of the terms Métis and Métis Nation is discussed in some detail in Volume 4, Chapter 5."
[14] Once again a degree of certainty attaches to the use of the designation "Labrador Metis." It must be recognized that a Royal Commission has the very broad mandate to inquire into and hear from numerous sources on the subject of its mandate before arriving at its conclusions or choosing the language it deemed appropriate to present its report. This was certainly not an unsophisticated document generated by unlettered individuals.
[15] In Volume 4 at Chapter 5 of the Royal Commission Report (supra) at paragraph 1.3 under the heading "The Metis Nation and the Labrador Metis" the authors state that:
"Although we have less information about the Métis people of Labrador, we believe that they are probably also in a position to exercise the rights and powers of nationhood. Certainly, the Labrador Métis community exhibits the historical rootedness, social cohesiveness and cultural self-consciousness that are essential to nationhood, and they are developing a political organization that will allow them to engage in effective nation-to-nation negotiation and to exercise self-government. While the way of life of the Labrador Métis is very similar to that of Labrador Inuit and Innu, the Métis culture is sufficiently distinct to mark them as a unique people, and in our view they are likely to be accorded nation status under the recognition policy we propose."
[16] What is significant here is the certainty that the Royal Commission puts on the historical rootedness of the Labrador Metis and the Royal Commission's recognition of them as a culturally unique people.
[17] While the Royal Commission Report at paragraph 1.4 of Chapter 5 of Volume 4 makes it clear that it is ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada which decides the legal definition of Metis it is hard to ignore the fact that perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada's specific reference to the Labrador Metis was setting the stage for just that in Powley (supra). This is especially so since that Court referred specifically to the Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples. At the very least it was clear notice that the Labrador Metis were a people poised for such recognition and nationhood.