User:AngoMango1/sandbox

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Crown's duty to consult Aboriginal groups prior to exploiting lands to which they may have claims.

General
In 1961, the Province of British Columbia issued a “Tree Farm License” to MacMillan Bloedel and Powell River Limited, a large forestry firm, that permitted them to harvest trees in an area of Haida Gwaii lands. The licence was renewed in 1981, 1995 and 2000, but in 1999, the provincial government approved a transfer of the licence to Weyerhaeuser Co. The Haida Nation brought a suit challenging the renewals and transfer as they were made without their consent and despite their objections.

The chambers judge found that the Crown was under a moral – but not legal – duty to negotiate with the Haida Nation. The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed this decision, deciding that both the Crown and Weyerhauser Co. were under legal obligations to consult with Aboriginal groups whose interests may be affected. The Crown appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The Haida Nation
The Haida Nation has traditionally occupied and claimed title to all the lands of Haida Gwaii and the waters surrounding it, but this title was not legally recognized. The Haida Nation also claimed an Aboriginal right to harvest red cedar in that area. Red cedar, traditionally used to build totem poles, canoes, and log houses, is culturally significant to the Haida people. Therefore, the Haida Nation sought to protect the large areas of old-growth red cedar covered by TFL 39 from clear-cutting and environmental harm.

Haida Nation lawyer, Terri-Lynn Williams Davidson, voiced that the Haida people had become "increasingly frustrated" by the scale of industrial logging on the islands leading up to the suit. She claimed that the industry had taken 14 million cubic metres of timber from TFL 39 over the past 20 years, amounting to CA$1.4 billion.

Judgment of the Court
Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for a unanimous court, found that the Crown has a "duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests". This duty is grounded in the honour of the Crown, and applies even where title has not been proven. The scope of this duty will vary with the circumstances; the duty will escalate proportionately to the strength of the claim for a right or title and the seriousness of the potential effect upon the claimed right or title. However, regardless of what the scope of the duty is determined to be, consultation must always be meaningful.

Where there is a strong prima facie case for the claim and the adverse effects of the government's proposed actions impact it in a significant (and adverse) way, the government may be required to accommodate. This may require taking steps to avoid irreparable harm or minimize the effects of the infringement.

Both sides are required to act in good faith throughout the process. The Crown must intend to substantially address the concerns of the Aboriginal group through meaningful consultation, and the Aboriginal group must not attempt to frustrate that effort or take unreasonable positions to thwart it.

On the facts of the case, the Court found that the Haida Nation's claims of title and an Aboriginal right were strong, and that the government's actions could have a serious impact on the claimed right and title. Accordingly, the Crown had a duty to consult the Haida Nation, and likely had a duty to accommodate their interests.

The Crown's duty of good-faith consultation does not extend to third parties, and cannot be delegated to them by the Crown. This is not to say that third parties cannot be liable to Aboriginal groups in negligence, or for dealing with them dishonestly. However, it does mean that the legal obligation of consultation and accommodation is shouldered exclusively by the Crown.

Accordingly, the Crown's appeal was dismissed and Weyerhauser Co.'s appeal was allowed.

Responses
Overall, the First Nations community responded positively to the Court's decision. Leaders of the First Nations Summit, such as Chief Doug Kelly and Dave Porter, congratulated the Haida Nation. However, Haida Nation president, Gidansda Guujaw, cautioned that it would be an empty victory if not acted upon by the First Nations people.

The forest industry was also pleased with the ruling. Peter Affleck, vice president of the Council of Forest Industries, stated that the decision would lessen the burden on forest companies. Sandy McDade, president of Weyerhaeuser, commented that the ruling reflected "a reasoned balancing of interests" as well.

Lastly, BC Attorney General, Geoff Plant, welcomed the decision as a development that would instill confidence in the investment community. He further commented that the ruling did not give the First Nations a "veto" over activities on Crown land.

Provincial Government and Haida Nation Relations
Since the decision, relations between the Haida Nation and the provincial government have not significantly improved. This is due to the Ministry of Forest’s failure to punish logging violations that have taken place on Haida land. Tensions have escalated throughout the years as the provincial government continues to fail to consult with and accommodate the Haida Nation.

Impact on Canadian Law
The Supreme Court’s decision created the “Haida Test” which has had a substantial impact on Canadian law. The test states that the Crown has a duty to consult and to accommodate Indigenous groups where they may be potentially adversely affected. It sets out the basic principles applicable to the duty to consult.