Interpretations - Rights of Indigenous Peoples

🥷 Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2025 ©
Date Retrieved:	2025-05-09
CLNP Page ID:	2500
Page Categories:	Indigenous
Citation:	Interpretations - Rights of Indigenous Peoples, CLNP 2500, <https://rvt.link/fj>, retrieved on 2025-05-09
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2025/05/02

Restoule v. Canada, 2020 ONSC 393

[207] Over the last few decades, the courts have developed well established principles to guide interpretation of legislation relating to Indigenous peoples, including legislation that affects Indigenous rights.[138] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that legislation relating to Indigenous peoples should receive a large, liberal, and purposive interpretation, and that linguistic ambiguities should be resolved in favour of the Indigenous peoples.[139]

(...)

[210] LaForest J., for the majority, agreed with Dickson, C.J.C. on the canons of interpretation relating to Indigenous peoples as those set out in Nowegijick, writing:

[I]t is clear that in the interpretation of any statutory enactment dealing with Indians … it is appropriate to interpret in a broad manner provisions that are aimed at maintaining Indian rights, and to interpret narrowly provisions aimed at limiting or abrogating them

(...)

[225] In Badger, Cory J. relied on the decisions in Nowegijick and Mitchell, to further articulate the statutory interpretation guidelines that courts must adopt when dealing with Indigenous peoples:

[T]he honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealing with Indian people. Interpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown. It is always assumed the Crown intends to fulfil its promises. … A corollary to this principle is that any limitations which restrict the rights of Indians under treaties must be narrowly construed.

(...)

[229] The Supreme Court of Canada has developed the principles of the honour of the Crown and the obligations flowing therefrom to the Indigenous people through its decisions in, among others, R. v. Sparrow,[159] Mitchell,[160] and Haida Nation.[161], , The principles and obligations were recognized in the context of treaty and statutory interpretation in Badger[162] and MMF,[163] where the Court mandated that: “Interpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown.”[164]