Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests)

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2004-11-18
Neutral citation
2004 SCC 73
Report
[2004] 3 SCR 511
Case number
29419
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
State
Notes
SCC Case Information: 29419
Decision Content
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73
Minister of Forests and Attorney General of British Columbia
on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province
of British Columbia Appellants
v.
Council of the Haida Nation and Guujaaw, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all members of the Haida Nation Respondents
and between
Weyerhaeuser Company Limited Appellant
v.
Council of the Haida Nation and Guujaaw, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all members of the Haida Nation Respondents
and
Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Nova Scotia,
Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta,
Squamish Indian Band and Lax-kw’alaams Indian Band,
Haisla Nation, First Nations Summit, Dene Tha’ First Nation,
Tenimgyet, aka Art Matthews, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief, Business
Council of British Columbia, Aggregate Producers Association
of British Columbia, British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines,
British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Council of Forest
Industries, Mining Association of British Columbia,
British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association and
Village of Port Clements Interveners
Indexed as: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests)
Neutral citation: 2004 SCC 73.
File No.: 29419.
2004: March 24; 2004: November 18.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Crown — Honour of Crown — Duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples — Whether Crown has duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to making decisions that might adversely affect their as yet unproven Aboriginal rights and title claims — Whether duty extends to third party.
For more than 100 years, the Haida people have claimed title to all the lands of Haida Gwaii and the waters surrounding it, but that title has not yet been legally recognized. The Province of British Columbia issued a “Tree Farm License” (T.F.L. 39) to a large forestry firm in 1961, permitting it to harvest trees in an area of Haida Gwaii designated as Block 6. In 1981, 1995 and 2000, the Minister replaced T.F.L. 39, and in 1999, the Minister approved a transfer of T.F.L. 39 to Weyerhaeuser Co. The Haida challenged in court these replacements and the transfer, which were made without their consent and, since at least 1994, over their objections. They asked that the replacements and transfer be set aside. The chambers judge dismissed the petition, but found that the government had a moral, not a legal, duty to negotiate with the Haida. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, declaring that both the government and Weyerhaeuser Co. have a duty to consult with and accommodate the Haida with respect to harvesting timber from Block 6.
Held: The Crown’s appeal should be dismissed. Weyerhaeuser Co.’s appeal should be allowed.
While it is open to the Haida to seek an interlocutory injunction, they are not confined to that remedy, which may fail to adequately take account of their interests prior to final determination thereof. If they can prove a special obligation giving rise to a duty to consult or accommodate, they are free to pursue other available remedies.
The government’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests is grounded in the principle of the honour of the Crown, which must be understood generously. While the asserted but unproven Aboriginal rights and title are insufficiently specific for the honour of the Crown to mandate that the Crown act as a fiduciary, the Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. The duty to consult and accommodate is part of a process of fair dealing and reconciliation that begins with the assertion of sovereignty and continues beyond formal claims resolution. The foundation of the duty in the Crown’s honour and the goal of reconciliation suggest that the duty arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it. Consultation and accommodation before final claims resolution preserve the Aboriginal interest and are an essential corollary to the honourable process of reconciliation that s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , demands.
The scope of the duty is proportionate to a preliminary assessment of the strength of the case supporting the existence of the right or title, and to the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the right or title claimed. The Crown is not under a duty to reach an agreement; rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation in good faith. The content of the duty varies with the circumstances and each case must be approached individually and flexibly. The controlling question in all situations is what is required to maintain the honour of the Crown and to effect reconciliation between the Crown and the Aboriginal people with respect to the interests at stake. The effect of good faith consultation may be to reveal a duty to accommodate. Where accommodation is required in making decisions that may adversely affect as yet unproven Aboriginal rights and title claims, the Crown must balance Aboriginal concerns reasonably with the potential impact of the decision on the asserted right or title and with other societal interests.
Third parties cannot be held liable for failing to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated, and the legal responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown. This does not mean, however, that third parties can never be liable to Aboriginal peoples.
Finally, the duty to consult and accommodate applies to the provincial government. At the time of the Union, the Provinces took their interest in land subject to any interest other than that of the Province in the same. Since the duty to consult and accommodate here at issue is grounded in the assertion of Crown sovereignty which pre-dated the Union, the Province took the lands subject to this duty.
The Crown’s obligation to consult the Haida on the replacement of T.F.L. 39 was engaged in this case. The Haida’s claims to title and Aboriginal right to harvest red cedar were supported by a good prima facie case, and the Province knew that the potential Aboriginal rights and title applied to Block 6, and could be affected by the decision to replace T.F.L. 39. T.F.L. decisions reflect strategic planning for utilization of the resource and may have potentially serious impacts on Aboriginal rights and titles. If consultation is to be meaningful, it must take place at the stage of granting or renewing T.F.L.’s. Furthermore, the strength of the case for both the Haida’s title and their right to harvest red cedar, coupled with the serious impact of incremental strategic decisions on those interests, suggest that the honour of the Crown may also require significant accommodation to preserve the Haida’s interest pending resolution of their claims.
Cases Cited
Applied: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; referred to: RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245, 2002 SCC 79; R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Beardmore (Township) (2000), 186 D.L.R. (4th) 403; Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911, 2001 SCC 33; Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 45, aff’d [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 1; Heiltsuk Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management) (2003), 19 B.C.L.R. (4th) 107; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; R. v. Adams, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46; Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585, 2003 SCC 55; Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247, 2003 SCC 20; Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 109 .
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 .
Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 157.
Forestry Revitalization Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 17.
Authors Cited
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, “accommodate”, “accommodation”.
Hunter, John J. L. “Advancing Aboriginal Title Claims after Delgamuukw: The Role of the Injunction”. Continuing Legal Education Conference on Litigating Aboriginal Title, June 2000.
Isaac, Thomas, and Anthony Knox. “The Crown’s Duty to Consult Aboriginal People” (2003), 41 Alta. L. Rev. 49.
Lawrence, Sonia, and Patrick Macklem. “From Consultation to Reconciliation: Aboriginal Rights and the Crown’s Duty to Consult” (2000), 79 Can. Bar Rev. 252.
New Zealand. Ministry of Justice. A Guide for Consultation with Mäori. Wellington: The Ministry, 1997.
APPEALS from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, [2002] 6 W.W.R. 243, 164 B.C.A.C. 217, 268 W.A.C. 217, 99 B.C.L.R. (3d) 209, 44 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1, [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 121, [2002] B.C.J. No. 378 (QL), 2002 BCCA 147, with supplementary reasons (2002), 216 D.L.R. (4th) 1, [2002] 10 W.W.R. 587, 172 B.C.A.C. 75, 282 W.A.C. 75, 5 B.C.L.R. (4th) 33, [2002] 4 C.N.L.R. 117, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1882 (QL), 2002 BCCA 462, reversing a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court (2000), 36 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 155, [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 83, [2000] B.C.J. No. 2427 (QL), 2000 BCSC 1280. Appeal by the Crown dismissed. Appeal by Weyerhaeuser Co. allowed.
Paul J. Pearlman, Q.C., and Kathryn L. Kickbush, for the appellants the Minister of Forests and the Attorney General of British Columbia on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia.
John J. L. Hunter, Q.C., and K. Michael Stephens, for the appellant Weyerhaeuser Company Limited.
Louise Mandell, Q.C., Michael Jackson, Q.C., Terri‑Lynn Williams‑Davidson, Gidfahl Gudsllaay and Cheryl Y. Sharvit, for the respondents.
Mitchell R. Taylor and Brian McLaughlin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
E. Ria Tzimas and Mark Crow, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
Pierre‑Christian Labeau, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
Written submissions only by Alexander MacBain Cameron, for the intervener the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C., and P. Mitch McAdam, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.
Stanley H. Rutwind and Kurt Sandstrom, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.
Gregory J. McDade, Q.C., and John R. Rich, for the interveners the Squamish Indian Band and the Lax-kw’alaams Indian Band.
Allan Donovan, for the intervener the Haisla Nation.
Hugh M. G. Braker, Q.C., Anja Brown, Arthur C. Pape and Jean Teillet, for the intervener the First Nations Summit.
Robert C. Freedman, for the intervener the Dene Tha’ First Nation.
Robert J. M. Janes and Dominique Nouvet, for the intervener Tenimgyet, aka Art Matthews, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief.
Charles F. Willms and Kevin O’Callaghan, for the interveners the Business Council of British Columbia, the Aggregate Producers Association of British Columbia, the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Forest Industries and the Mining Association of British Columbia.
Thomas F. Isaac, for the intervener the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association.
Stuart A. Rush, Q.C., for the intervener the Village of Port Clements.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Chief Justice —
I. Introduction
1 To the west of the mainland of British Columbia lie the Queen Charlotte Islands, the traditional homeland of the Haida people. Haida Gwaii, as the inhabitants call it, consists of two large islands and a number of smaller islands. For more than 100 years, the Haida people have claimed title to all the lands of the Haida Gwaii and the waters surrounding it. That title is still in the claims process and has not yet been legally recognized.
2 The islands of Haida Gwaii are heavily forested. Spruce, hemlock and cedar abound. The most important of these is the cedar which, since time immemorial, has played a central role in the economy and culture of the Haida people. It is from cedar that they made their ocean-going canoes, their clothing, their utensils and the totem poles that guarded their lodges. The cedar forest remains central to their life and their conception of themselves.
3 The forests of Haida Gwaii have been logged since before the First World War. Portions of the island have been logged off. Other portions bear second-growth forest. In some areas, old-growth forests can still be found.
4 The Province of British Columbia continues to issue licences to cut trees on Haida Gwaii to forestry companies. The modern name for these licenses are Tree Farm Licences, or T.F.L.’s. Such a licence is at the heart of this litigation. A large forestry firm, MacMillan Bloedel Limited acquired T.F.L. 39 in 1961, permitting it to harvest trees in an area designated as Block 6. In 1981, 1995 and 2000, the Minister replaced T.F.L. 39 pursuant to procedures set out in the Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 157. In 1999, the Minister approved a transfer of T.F.L. 39 to Weyerhaeuser Company Limited (“Weyerhaeuser”). The Haida people challenged these replacements and the transfer, which were made without their consent and, since at least 1994, over their objections. Nevertheless, T.F.L. 39 continued.
5 In January of 2000, the Haida people launched a lawsuit objecting to the three replacement decisions and the transfer of T.F.L. 39 to Weyerhaeuser and asking that they be set aside. They argued legal encumbrance, equitable encumbrance and breach of fiduciary duty, all grounded in their assertion of Aboriginal title.
6 This brings us to the issue before this Court. The government holds legal title to the land. Exercising that legal title, it has granted Weyerhaeuser the right to harvest the forests in Block 6 of the land. But the Haida people also claim title to the land — title which they are in the process of trying to prove — and object to the harvesting of the forests on Block 6 as proposed in T.F.L. 39. In this situation, what duty if any does the government owe the Haida people? More concretely, is the government required to consult with them about decisions to harvest the forests and to accommodate their concerns about what if any forest in Block 6 should be harvested before they have proven their title to land and their Aboriginal rights?
7 The stakes are huge. The Haida argue that absent consultation and accommodation, they will win their title but find themselves deprived of forests that are vital to their economy and their culture. Forests take generations to mature, they point out, and old-growth forests can never be replaced. The Haida’s claim to title to Haida Gwaii is strong, as found by the chambers judge. But it is also complex and will take many years to prove. In the meantime, the Haida argue, their heritage will be irretrievably despoiled.
8 The government, in turn, argues that it has the right and responsibility to manage the forest resource for the good of all British Columbians, and that until the Haida people formally prove their claim, they have no legal right to be consulted or have their needs and interests accommodated.
9 The chambers judge found that the government has a moral, but not a legal, duty to negotiate with the Haida people: [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 83, 2000 BCSC 1280. The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that both the government and Weyerhaeuser have a duty to consult with and accommodate the Haida people with respect to harvesting timber from Block 6: (2002), 99 B.C.L.R. (3d) 209, 2002 BCCA 147, with supplementary reasons (2002), 5 B.C.L.R. (4th) 33, 2002 BCCA 462.
10 I conclude that the government has a legal duty to consult with the Haida people about the harvest of timber from Block 6, including decisions to transfer or replace Tree Farm Licences. Good faith consultation may in turn lead to an obligation to accommodate Haida concerns in the harvesting of timber, although what accommodation if any may be required cannot at this time be ascertained. Consultation must be meaningful. There is no duty to reach agreement. The duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate cannot be discharged by delegation to Weyerhaeuser. Nor does Weyerhaeuser owe any independent duty to consult with or accommodate the Haida people’s concerns, although the possibility remains that it could become liable for assumed obligations. It follows that I would dismiss the Crown’s appeal and allow the appeal of Weyerhaeuser.
11 This case is the first of its kind to reach this Court. Our task is the modest one of establishing a general framework for the duty to consult and accommodate, where indicated, before Aboriginal title or rights claims have been decided. As this framework is applied, courts, in the age-old tradition of the common law, will be called on to fill in the details of the duty to consult and accommodate.
II. Analysis
A. Does the Law of Injunctions Govern This Situation?
12 It is argued that the Haida’s proper remedy is to apply for an interlocutory injunction against the government and Weyerhaeuser, and that therefore it is unnecessary to consider a duty to consult or accommodate. In RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, the requirements for obtaining an interlocutory injunction were reviewed. The plaintiff must establish: (1) a serious issue to be tried; (2) that irreparable harm will be suffered if the injunction is not granted; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours the injunction.
13 It is open to plaintiffs like the Haida to seek an interlocutory injunction. However, it does not follow that they are confined to that remedy. If plaintiffs can prove a special obligation giving rise to a duty to consult or accommodate, they are free to pursue these remedies. Here the Haida rely on the obligation flowing from the honour of the Crown toward Aboriginal peoples.
14 Interlocutory injunctions may offer only partial imperfect relief. First, as mentioned, they may not capture the full obligation on the government alleged by the Haida. Second, they typically represent an all-or-nothing solution. Either the project goes ahead or it halts. By contrast, the alleged duty to consult and accommodate by its very nature entails balancing of Aboriginal and other interests and thus lies closer to the aim of reconciliation at the heart of Crown-Aboriginal relations, as set out in R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507, at para. 31, and Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 186. Third, the balance of convenience test tips the scales in favour of protecting jobs and government revenues, with the result that Aboriginal interests tend to “lose” outright pending a final determination of the issue, instead of being balanced appropriately against conflicting concerns: J. J. L. Hunter, “Advancing Aboriginal Title Claims after Delgamuukw: The Role of the Injunction” (June 2000). Fourth, interlocutory injunctions are designed as a stop-gap remedy pending litigation of the underlying issue. Aboriginal claims litigation can be very complex and require years and even decades to resolve in the courts. An interlocutory injunction over such a long period of time might work unnecessary prejudice and may diminish incentives on the part of the successful party to compromise. While Aboriginal claims can be and are pursued through litigation, negotiation is a preferable way of reconciling state and Aboriginal interests. For all these reasons, interlocutory injunctions may fail to adequately take account of Aboriginal interests prior to their final determination.
15 I conclude that the remedy of interlocutory injunction does not preclude the Haida’s claim. We must go further and see whether the special relationship with the Crown upon which the Haida rely gives rise to a duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate. In what follows, I discuss the source of the duty, when the duty arises, the scope and content of the duty, whether the duty extends to third parties, and whether it applies to the provincial government and not exclusively the federal government. I then apply the conclusions flowing from this discussion to the facts of this case.
B. The Source of a Duty to Consult and Accommodate
16 The government’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples and accommodate their interests is grounded in the honour of the Crown. The honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealings with Aboriginal peoples: see for example R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771, at para. 41; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456. It is not a mere incantation, but rather a core precept that finds its application in concrete practices.
17 The historical roots of the principle of the honour of the Crown suggest that it must be understood generously in order to reflect the underlying realities from which it stems. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably. Nothing less is required if we are to achieve “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown”: Delgamuukw, supra, at para. 186, quoting Van der Peet, supra, at para. 31.
18 The honour of the Crown gives rise to different duties in different circumstances. Where the Crown has assumed discretionary control over specific Aboriginal interests, the honour of the Crown gives rise to a fiduciary duty: Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245, 2002 SCC 79, at para. 79. The content of the fiduciary duty may vary to take into account the Crown’s other, broader obligations. However, the duty’s fulfilment requires that the Crown act with reference to the Aboriginal group’s best interest in exercising discretionary control over the specific Aboriginal interest at stake. As explained in Wewaykum, at para. 81, the term “fiduciary duty” does not connote a universal trust relationship encompassing all aspects of the relationship between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples:
. . . “fiduciary duty” as a source of plenary Crown liability covering all aspects of the Crown-Indian band relationship . . . overshoots the mark. The fiduciary duty imposed on the Crown does not exist at large but in relation to specific Indian interests.
Here, Aboriginal rights and title have been asserted but have not been defined or proven. The Aboriginal interest in question is insufficiently specific for the honour of the Crown to mandate that the Crown act in the Aboriginal group’s best interest, as a fiduciary, in exercising discretionary control over the subject of the right or title.
19 The honour of the Crown also infuses the processes of treaty making and treaty interpretation. In making and applying treaties, the Crown must act with honour and integrity, avoiding even the appearance of “sharp dealing” (Badger, at para. 41). Thus in Marshall, supra, at para. 4, the majority of this Court supported its interpretation of a treaty by stating that “nothing less would uphold the honour and integrity of the Crown in its dealings with the Mi’kmaq people to secure their peace and friendship . . .”.
20 Where treaties remain to be concluded, the honour of the Crown requires negotiations leading to a just settlement of Aboriginal claims: R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at pp. 1105-6. Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty, and to define Aboriginal rights guaranteed by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 . Section 35 represents a promise of rights recognition, and “[i]t is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfil its promises” (Badger, supra, at para. 41). This promise is realized and sovereignty claims reconciled through the process of honourable negotiation. It is a corollary of s. 35 that the Crown act honourably in defining the rights it guarantees and in reconciling them with other rights and interests. This, in turn, implies a duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate.
21 This duty to consult is recognized and discussed in the jurisprudence. In Sparrow, supra, at p. 1119, this Court affirmed a duty to consult with west-coast Salish asserting an unresolved right to fish. Dickson C.J. and La Forest J. wrote that one of the factors in determining whether limits on the right were justified is “whether the aboriginal group in question has been consulted with respect to the conservation measures being implemented”.
22 The Court affirmed the duty to consult regarding resources to which Aboriginal peoples make claim a few years later in R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013, where Cory J. wrote: “So long as every reasonable effort is made to inform and to consult, such efforts would suffice to meet the justification requirement” (para. 110).
23 In the companion case of R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723, Lamer C.J. referred to the need for “consultation and compensation”, and to consider “how the government has accommodated different aboriginal rights in a particular fishery . . ., how important the fishery is to the economic and material well-being of the band in question, and the criteria taken into account by the government in, for example, allocating commercial licences amongst different users” (para. 64).
24 The Court’s seminal decision in Delgamuukw, supra, at para. 168, in the context of a claim for title to land and resources, confirmed and expanded on the duty to consult, suggesting the content of the duty varied with the circumstances: from a minimum “duty to discuss important decisions” where the “breach is less serious or relatively minor”; through the “significantly deeper than mere consultation” that is required in “most cases”; to “full consent of [the] aboriginal nation” on very serious issues. These words apply as much to unresolved claims as to intrusions on settled claims.
25 Put simply, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came, and were never conquered. Many bands reconciled their claims with the sovereignty of the Crown through negotiated treaties. Others, notably in British Columbia, have yet to do so. The potential rights embedded in these claims are protected by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 . The honour of the Crown requires that these rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests.
C. When the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Arises
26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?
27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests. The Crown is not rendered impotent. It may continue to manage the resource in question pending claims resolution. But, depending on the circumstances, discussed more fully below, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult with and reasonably accommodate Aboriginal interests pending resolution of the claim. To unilaterally exploit a claimed resource during the process of proving and resolving the Aboriginal claim to that resource, may be to deprive the Aboriginal claimants of some or all of the benefit of the resource. That is not honourable.
28 The government argues that it is under no duty to consult and accommodate prior to final determination of the scope and content of the right. Prior to proof of the right, it is argued, there exists only a broad, common law “duty of fairness”, based on the general rule that an administrative decision that affects the “rights, privileges or interests of an individual” triggers application of the duty of fairness: Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643, at p. 653; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 20. The government asserts that, beyond general administrative law obligations, a duty to consult and accommodate arises only where the government has taken on the obligation of protecting a specific Aboriginal interest or is seeking to limit an established Aboriginal interest. In the result, the government submits that there is no legal duty to consult and accommodate Haida interests at this stage, although it concedes there may be “sound practical and policy reasons” to do so.
29 The government cites both authority and policy in support of its position. It relies on Sparrow, supra, at pp. 1110-13 and 1119, where the scope and content of the right were determined and infringement established, prior to consideration of whether infringement was justified. The government argues that its position also finds support in the perspective of the Ontario Court of Appeal in TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Beardmore (Township) (2000), 186 D.L.R. (4th) 403, which held that “what triggers a consideration of the Crown’s duty to consult is a showing by the First Nation of a violation of an existing Aboriginal or treaty right recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1)” (para. 120).
30 As for policy, the government points to practical difficulties in the enforcement of a duty to consult or accommodate unproven claims. If the duty to consult varies with the circumstances from a “mere” duty to notify and listen at one end of the spectrum to a requirement of Aboriginal consent at the other end, how, the government asks, are the parties to agree which level is appropriate in the face of contested claims and rights? And if they cannot agree, how are courts or tribunals to determine this? The government also suggests that it is impractical and unfair to require consultation before final claims determination because this amounts to giving a remedy before issues of infringement and justification are decided.
31 The government’s arguments do not withstand scrutiny. Neither the authorities nor practical considerations support the view that a duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate arises only upon final determination of the scope and content of the right.
32 The jurisprudence of this Court supports the view that the duty to consult and accommodate is part of a process of fair dealing and reconciliation that begins with the assertion of sovereignty and continues beyond formal claims resolution. Reconciliation is not a final legal remedy in the usual sense. Rather, it is a process flowing from rights guaranteed by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 . This process of reconciliation flows from the Crown’s duty of honourable dealing toward Aboriginal peoples, which arises in turn from the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty over an Aboriginal people and de facto control of land and resources that were formerly in the control of that people. As stated in Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911, 2001 SCC 33, at para. 9, “[w]ith this assertion [sovereignty] arose an obligation to treat aboriginal peoples fairly and honourably, and to protect them from exploitation” (emphasis added).
33 To limit reconciliation to the post-proof sphere risks treating reconciliation as a distant legalistic goal, devoid of the “meaningful content” mandated by the “solemn commitment” made by the Crown in recognizing and affirming Aboriginal rights and title: Sparrow, supra, at p. 1108. It also risks unfortunate consequences. When the distant goal of proof is finally reached, the Aboriginal peoples may find their land and resources changed and denuded. This is not reconciliation. Nor is it honourable.
34 The existence of a legal duty to consult prior to proof of claims is necessary to understand the language of cases like Sparrow, Nikal, and Gladstone, supra, where confirmation of the right and justification of an alleged infringement were litigated at the same time. For example, the reference in Sparrow to Crown behaviour in determining if any infringements were justified, is to behaviour before determination of the right. This negates the contention that a proven right is the trigger for a legal duty to consult and if appropriate accommodate even in the context of justification.
35 But, when precisely does a duty to consult arise? The foundation of the duty in the Crown’s honour and the goal of reconciliation suggest that the duty arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it: see Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests), [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 45 (B.C.S.C.), at p. 71, per Dorgan J.
36 This leaves the practical argument. It is said that before claims are resolved, the Crown cannot know that the rights exist, and hence can have no duty to consult or accommodate. This difficulty should not be denied or minimized. As I stated (dissenting) in Marshall, supra, at para. 112, one cannot “meaningfully discuss accommodation or justification of a right unless one has some idea of the core of that right and its modern scope”. However, it will frequently be possible to reach an idea of the asserted rights and of their strength sufficient to trigger an obligation to consult and accommodate, short of final judicial determination or settlement. To facilitate this determination, claimants should outline their claims with clarity, focussing on the scope and nature of the Aboriginal rights they assert and on the alleged infringements. This is what happened here, where the chambers judge made a preliminary evidence-based assessment of the strength of the Haida claims to the lands and resources of Haida Gwaii, particularly Block 6.
37 There is a distinction between knowledge sufficient to trigger a duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate, and the content or scope of the duty in a particular case. Knowledge of a credible but unproven claim suffices to trigger a duty to consult and accommodate. The content of the duty, however, varies with the circumstances, as discussed more fully below. A dubious or peripheral claim may attract a mere duty of notice, while a stronger claim may attract more stringent duties. The law is capable of differentiating between tenuous claims, claims possessing a strong prima facie case, and established claims. Parties can assess these matters, and if they cannot agree, tribunals and courts can assist. Difficulties associated with the absence of proof and definition of claims are addressed by assigning appropriate content to the duty, not by denying the existence of a duty.
38 I conclude that consultation and accommodation before final claims resolution, while challenging, is not impossible, and indeed is an essential corollary to the honourable process of reconciliation that s. 35 demands. It preserves the Aboriginal interest pending claims resolution and fosters a relationship between the parties that makes possible negotiations, the preferred process for achieving ultimate reconciliation: see S. Lawrence and P. Macklem, “From Consultation to Reconciliation: Aboriginal Rights and the Crown’s Duty to Consult” (2000), 79 Can. Bar Rev. 252, at p. 262. Precisely what is required of the government may vary with the strength of the claim and the circumstances. But at a minimum, it must be consistent with the honour of the Crown.
D. The Scope and Content of the Duty to Consult and Accommodate
39 The content of the duty to consult and accommodate varies with the circumstances. Precisely what duties arise in different situations will be defined as the case law in this emerging area develops. In general terms, however, it may be asserted that the scope of the duty is proportionate to a preliminary assessment of the strength of the case supporting the existence of the right or title, and to the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the right or title claimed.
40 In Delgamuukw, supra, at para. 168, the Court considered the duty to consult and accommodate in the context of established claims. Lamer C.J. wrote:
The nature and scope of the duty of consultation will vary with the circumstances. In occasional cases, when the breach is less serious or relatively minor, it will be no more than a duty to discuss important decisions that will be taken with respect to lands held pursuant to aboriginal title. Of course, even in these rare cases when the minimum acceptable standard is consultation, this consultation must be in good faith, and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of the aboriginal peoples whose lands are at issue. In most cases, it will be significantly deeper than mere consultation. Some cases may even require the full consent of an aboriginal nation, particularly when provinces enact hunting and fishing regulations in relation to aboriginal lands.
41 Transposing this passage to pre-proof claims, one may venture the following. While it is not useful to classify situations into watertight compartments, different situations requiring different responses can be identified. In all cases, the honour of the Crown requires that the Crown act with good faith to provide meaningful consultation appropriate to the circumstances. In discharging this duty, regard may be had to the procedural safeguards of natural justice mandated by administrative law.
42 At all stages, good faith on both sides is required. The common thread on the Crown’s part must be “the intention of substantially addressing [Aboriginal] concerns” as they are raised (Delgamuukw, supra, at para. 168), through a meaningful process of consultation. Sharp dealing is not permitted. However, there is no duty to agree; rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation. As for Aboriginal claimants, they must not frustrate the Crown