Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Daniels declared that Métis and non-status Indians fall within federal jurisdiction over "Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians" under s.91(24). The federal government cannot deny jurisdiction; it is the appropriate party for negotiation of rights and services.

Harry Daniels and others sought a declaration that Métis and non-status Indians are within s.91(24); that the federal Crown owes a fiduciary duty; and that Métis and non-status Indians have the right to be consulted and negotiated with.

(1) Are Métis and non-status Indians "Indians" under s.91(24)? (2) Are the other declarations available?

(1) Yes — declaration granted. (2) The other declarations were unnecessary or covered by existing law.

Section 91(24) is to be read in light of historical practice. Federal jurisdiction over "Indians" extends to all Indigenous peoples, including Métis and non-status Indians, regardless of differential treatment under the Indian Act.

Abella J emphasised the historical disadvantage suffered by Métis and non-status Indians being shuttled between federal and provincial jurisdictions. The s.91(24) declaration removes that uncertainty, providing a clear federal locus for negotiation, even though it does not by itself create new substantive rights.

Major institutional consequence: the federal Crown is the negotiating partner for Métis and non-status Indian rights. Catalysed federal-Métis Nation modern treaties. Refines and complements R v Powley (2003) on Métis Aboriginal rights.

Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12, [2016] 1 SCR 99.

McLachlin CJ, Abella J, Cromwell J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J, Wagner J, Gascon J, Côté J, Brown J