12/18/2015 CourtRulesThatMembersoftheMtisCommunityofDomaineDuRoyandSeigneurieDeMinganHaveNoAncestralRights|Publications|Fasken

CourtRulesThatMembersofthe
MtisCommunityofDomaineDu
RoyandSeigneurieDeMingan
HaveNoAncestralRights

Authors

AboriginalLawBulletin

PracticeAreas

EmilieBundock
Montral
DelphinePittet
Montral

AboriginalLaw
OnFebruary10,2015,theSuperiorCourtofQubec(theCourt),underthepenofthe
HonourableJ.RogerBanford,J.C.S.,handeddownajudgmentonthejudicialprocedures
thathaveprevailedtheselastfifteenyearswhenitcomestoclaimingtheconstitutional
protectionaffordedtotheMtisundersection35oftheConstitutionAct,1982(ScheduleB
totheCanadaAct1982(U.K.),1982,c11)(theConstitutionAct).TheCourtconcluded
thattherespondentsfailedtodemonstratetheexistenceoftheancestralrightclaimedthat
wouldhaveentitledthemtotheprotectionaffordedtoAboriginalpeoples,includingthe
Mtis,undersection35oftheConstitutionAct.
OnMarch11,2015,theRespondentappealedthisdecisionbeforetheCourtofAppealof
QubecinthedistrictofQubecCity.
Context
InthejudicialdistrictofChicoutimianditssurroundingarea,manyindividualsoccupysites
onpubliclandwithoutanyrightofownership,leaseorpermitofoccupation.OnJanuary
14,2000,theAttorneyGeneralofQubec(theAttorneyGeneral)hadapetitionto
dispossessservedonrespondentGhislainCorneau(theRespondent)undersection54
oftheActrespectingthelandsinthepublicdomain(nowknownastheActrespectingthe
LandsintheDomainoftheState(CQLRcT8.1))(theAct).
Section54oftheActreadsasfollows:
Nopersonmayerectormaintainabuilding,installationsorworksonany
landexceptwithauthorizationoftheMinisterhavingauthorityoverthat
land.Theauthorizationisnotrequiredfortheexerciseofaright,the
performanceofadutyunderthelaworsofarasprescribedbyregulation
oftheGovernment.
TheAttorneyGeneralaccusedtheRespondentofillegallyoccupyinglandinthedomainof
theState,morespecificallyintheTownshipofHarvey,judicialdistrictofChicoutimi,and
askedtheCourttoorderhimtoabandonthelandandrestorethepremisestotheirformer
condition.
TheRespondentfiledacontestationonDecember15,2000,arguingthathissituationwas
lawful.Heallegedthatsection54oftheActactuallyallowshimtooccupythepremises
http://www.fasken.com/courtrulesthatmembersofthemetiscommunityofdomaineduroyandseigneuriedeminganhavenoancestralrights/

1/5

12/18/2015 CourtRulesThatMembersoftheMtisCommunityofDomaineDuRoyandSeigneurieDeMinganHaveNoAncestralRights|Publications|Fasken

contemplatedbytheprovincespetitionwithoutministerialauthorization,owingtothe
ancestralrightsthattheConstitutionActconfersonMontagnaisAboriginals.
InhisdefenseandcounterclaimdatedMarch8,2006,theRespondent,asamemberofthe
MtiscommunityofDomaineduRoyandSeigneuriedeMingan(theCMDRSM),argued
insteadthatbecauseofhismixedAmerindianandEuropeanancestry,heconsidered
himselftobeaMtisdescendedfromoneofthesixteen(16)Mtisfamiliesthatfounded
DomaineduRoyandSeigneuriedeMingan,namelyAntoineLavaltrie,ofEuropean
descent,andhisAboriginalspouseNipissingne.TheRespondentallegedthathehad
beenamemberoftheCMDRSMsinceApril23,2005.TheCMDRSMisanonprofit
corporationcreatedonJanuary4,2005thathasitsheadofficeinSaguenayandwhose
missionistopromotethecollectiveinterestsoftheMtiswhoareitsmembers.The
CMDRSManditsmembersclaimtohaveancestralrightsundersection35(1)ofthe
ConstitutionActonwhattheydescribeas:[TRANSLATION]aterritorymorevastthanthe
regionofSaguenayLacSaintJeanCoteNord,knowninthe17thCenturyasDomainedu
RoyandSeigneuriedeMingan.TheRespondentallegedthatthisterritorywasthe
traditionalhunting,fishingandgatheringgroundsofhisMtisancestors.
TheRespondentaskedtheCourttofindthathe,asaMtismemberoftheCMDRSM,has
ancestralrightstohunt,trap,gatherandfishforfoodontheancestralterritoryofthe
CMDRSMdescribedabove.TheRespondentalsoaskedtheCourttodeclarethathe,asa
MtismemberoftheCMDRSM,hastheancillaryrighttoerectandmaintainsheltersonthat
territory,includingonthesitecontemplatedbytheprovincespetition,forthepurposesof
exercisinghisancestralrightstohunt,trap,gatherandfishforfoodthatareprotectedunder
section35(1)oftheConstitutionAct.
TheCourtallowedtheCMRDSMtoparticipateinthedisputebymeansofconservatory
intervention.
Duringthatsameperiod,theAttorneyGeneralfiledseveralpetitionstodispossessother
respondentsinthejudicialdistrictofChicoutimiarulingwaslaterissuedMay1,2009
orderingthejoinderofseventeenofthesecasessothattheycouldbeheardtogether.Of
thesecases,fourteenwerebeingcontestedbymeansofaconsolidateddefencepursuant
towhichtherespondentseachclaimedthattheyhadAboriginalrights,asMtis,under
section35oftheConstitutionAct.
Forthesakeofbrevity,thefourteenrespondentsinthecaseoverwhichtheCourtruledin
itsjudgmentarecollectivelyreferredtoastheRespondents.

ThePowleytestproofoftheexistenceofanhistoricMtiscommunity
ontheclaimedterritory
TobedeclaredMtisandthusqualifyfortheancestralrightstohunt,trap,gatherandfish
forfoodontheancestralterritoryoftheCMDRSM,Respondentsneededtodemonstrate,
amongtheothercriteriaestablishedintheSupremeCourtofCanadasPowley,[1]thatan
historicMtiscommunityexistsontheterritoryinrespectofwhichancestralrightsarebeing
claimed.Basedonthebalanceofprobabilities,theRespondentshadtopresentsufficiently
convincingevidencetotheCourtoftheexistenceofanidentifiable,distinctand
homogeneousMtiscommunityusingdemographicandterritorialdata,evidenceofa
groupthatsharescustoms,traditionsandacollectiveidentity.
Respondentsreliedonresearchthathadbeenaccumulatedbyaregionalhistorianovera
periodofmorethan30years,some2000documentsgatheredbyseveralregionalState
historians,aswellasthousandsofpagesofprimarysourcesputtogetherbyother
http://www.fasken.com/courtrulesthatmembersofthemetiscommunityofdomaineduroyandseigneuriedeminganhavenoancestralrights/

2/5

12/18/2015 CourtRulesThatMembersoftheMtisCommunityofDomaineDuRoyandSeigneurieDeMinganHaveNoAncestralRights|Publications|Fasken

historians.Nothing,however,inanyofthisinformationrevealedobjectiveevidencethat
couldbeusedtodemonstratetheexistenceofahistoricMtiscommunityontheterritoryin
respectofwhichancestralrightswerebeingclaimed,oranysignwhatsoeverofasocial
structuredifferentfromthatofthefirstinhabitantsandtheEuropeandescendantsthat
followed.
TheevidencefailedtoturnupanyrelevantdatathatwouldallowtheRespondentstobe
consideredmembersofadistinctMtiscommunity,suchasmeetingsorgatheringsof
theseMtisindividualsforanypurposewhatsoeverthatwouldbespecifictotheir
community.Instead,whattheevidenceshowsisthatseveralfamiliesunderwentvarious
interminglingprocesses,eachfollowingtheirownseparatecourse,buttheseprocesses
involvedonlymembersofthesamefamilyinsteadofmembersofacommunity.Andyet,as
thePowleytestsuggests,traditionalpracticesandcustomsthatareattheverycoreof
ancestralrightsare,bydefinition,transmittedfromonegenerationtothenextandmust
havebeenexercisedforasufficientlengthoftime.Itisnotenoughtodemonstrate
significantinterbreedingbetweenthepopulationsAboriginalandEuropeanmembersto
establishthepresenceofaMtiscommunity.
ThelegalrulethattheSupremeCourtofCanadadevelopedinPowleyisclear.Itiscrucial
thatthecriteriaforidentifyinganhistoricMtiscommunityberespectedinordertopreserve
theobjectivessoughtbysection35oftheConstitutionAct.Wherethereisnosuch
compliance,theCourtcannotrecognizeanyancestralrights.TheCourtconcludedthatthe
evidencepresenteddidnotpointtothepresenceofanhistoric,identifiableanddistinct
Mtispeopleorcommunity.

OthercriteriaofthePowleytest
Territory
TheSupremeCourtofCanadadoesnotspecificallydefinethenotionofterritoryinPowley,
asthatissuewasnotthenindispute.IntheSuperiorCourtcase,theevidencesituatesthe
historiccommunityintheregionofthecurrentmunicipalitiesofSaguenay(includingSaint
FulgenceandShipshaw),RobervalandEscouminsthereforethecampscontemplatedby
theproceedingscouldbeconnectedtothisterritory.
Existenceofacontemporarycommunity
ThenextstepofthePowleytestistoidentifyacontemporarycommunitythatholdsthe
ancestralrightclaimed.RespondentswererequiredtoshowthataMtisgroupcontinues
tothisdaytoperpetuatethepracticesofthehistoricMtiscommunity.Thiscontemporary
Mtiscommunitymustbeconnectedtotheclaimedterritoryandpresentsomedegreeof
continuityandstabilitywiththehistoriccommunity.
EachrespondentfirstestablishedagenealogicallinkwithanAmerindianorMtis
ancestor,thenclaimedtobeamemberoftheCMDRSM.
TheCourtpointedoutthatwhilebelongingtoanorganizationsuchastheCMDRSMmight
berelevant,itwasnotadecidingfactorunderthecircumstances.TheCourtconcludedthat
theCMDRSMwascreatedtoorecentlytohavebeenavehiclefortransmittingindigenous
traditions,suchthatmembershipintheCMDRSMcannotbeusedtorigorouslyestablisha
link,basedontherelevantlegalcriteria,betweenitsmembersandanancestralMtis
community.Afterexaminingtheevidencepresentedbytheexperts,theCourtwentonto
concludethatitcouldnotbeusedtosupporttheexistence,ontheterritory,ofa
contemporaryMtiscommunitybearingtherightsclaimedbytheRespondents.
http://www.fasken.com/courtrulesthatmembersofthemetiscommunityofdomaineduroyandseigneuriedeminganhavenoancestralrights/

3/5

12/18/2015 CourtRulesThatMembersoftheMtisCommunityofDomaineDuRoyandSeigneurieDeMinganHaveNoAncestralRights|Publications|Fasken

Prioroccupation
ThenextstepofthePowleytestrequirestheRespondentstodemonstratethattheMtis
communityoccupiedtheclaimedterritorypriortotheCrownssovereignty.Onthatpoint,
theRespondentsarguedthattheCrowneffectivelygainedcontrolovertheclaimedterritory
duringaperiodofmigratoryeffervescencethatsawthearrivalofamassivenumberof
colonizers,thecreationofmunicipalandlegalinstitutions,thedisplacementofAboriginals
intoreservesandwhattheydescribeastheadministrativedisappearanceoftheMtis
between1842and1853.TheAttorneyGeneralarguedonthecontrarythatthesovereign
acts,takenprogressivelyundertheFrenchandBritishregimesalike,showthateffective
controlovertheclaimedterritorywascompletedbetween1733and1767.
TheCourtemphasizedthatthepartiesrespectiveclaimswerenotwithoutmerit.Itadded,
however,thatanyassessmentofthecontrolseffectivenessmustnecessarilyalignwiththe
goalsofthelaw,whicharetorecognizeandprotectAboriginalrights.Consequently,as
illustratedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadasapproachinPowley,politicalandlegal
controloveraterritorycanonlybedeterminedbytheeffectoftheauthoritiesactsonthe
customs,practicesandtraditionsoftheAboriginalpeopleontheterritory.Here,the
circumstancesestablishedbytheevidencerevealthattheAboriginalpeopleswayoflife
withintheclaimedterritorywasnotgreatlyaffectedbyEuropeanlawsandcustomsbefore
theregionwasopenedtocolonization,namelyoncethemonopolygrantedtotheHudsons
BayCompanyexpiredin1842.Theeffectivecontrolcontinueduntillate1850,withthe
establishmentofadministrativeinstitutions.
Respondentsmembershipinthecontemporarycommunity
VerificationoftheidentityofanindividualclaiminganAboriginalMtisrightisanother
crucialstepofthePowleytest.Thethreemainelementsthatmustbedemonstratedare:
selfidentification,ancestralconnectionandcommunityacceptance.
TheRespondenttestifiedthathisfatherhadtoldhimwhenhewasonly8or9yearsoldthat
hewaspartsavage.BorninChicoutimi,hestartedfollowinghisfather,aforestworker
andentrepreneur,onhishuntingtripsattheageof13,andhascontinuedthepracticeto
thisday.Herecognizeshavingoftenactedclandestinely,huntingoutofseasonupuntil
1971,thenhavingmovedhisshelters,cabinsorblindsthatwereillegallyerectedinthe
woodswheneverwildlifeofficialswouldgivehimwarningorthreatentointervene.Onlyin
the1980sand1990sdidtheRespondent,whenfacedwiththethreatofseeinghishunting
campdestroyedbyauthorities,begintodosomeresearchintotheAboriginalrootshis
fatherhadtoldhimabout.GenealogicalresearchconfirmedthathedidhaveMontagnais
ancestryonhisfathersside,fivegenerationsremoved.Thatwaswhenhedecidedtojoin
Aboriginalrightsdefenceassociations.HebecameamemberoftheCMDRSMin2005.
TheCourtconcludedthatthislateawakeningsuggeststhattheRespondentsidentification
wastingedwithopportunism.TheRespondentsclaimsdonotmeettheselfidentification
criterion,asbloodrelationshipaloneisinsufficient.Asforancestralconnections,theCourt
concludedthattheevidencerevealsthathisancestorsAboriginalculturecouldonlyhave
beenmarginalandhismembershipinahistoricMtiscommunitywashighlyimprobable.
Indeed,thegenealogicalbackgroundthatwasadduced,notablythefactthatRespondents
Montagnaisancestorlefthiscommunityataveryyoungage,wasinsufficient.Asforthe
criterionofacceptancebythecontemporarycommunity,theRespondentallegesbeinga
memberofonlyonecommunity,theCMDRSM.However,theCMDRSMishardlya
contemporaryMtiscommunityinthiscase,seeingasnotonlyisitquiteyoung,itwas
createdforthepurposesofdefendingpoliticalinterestsandbearsnoculturalrelationship
whatsoevertoanyancestralMtiscommunity.
http://www.fasken.com/courtrulesthatmembersofthemetiscommunityofdomaineduroyandseigneuriedeminganhavenoancestralrights/

4/5

12/18/2015 CourtRulesThatMembersoftheMtisCommunityofDomaineDuRoyandSeigneurieDeMinganHaveNoAncestralRights|Publications|Fasken

TheremainingcriteriaofthePowleytestwentunexaminedbytheCourtowingtothe
lattersconclusionsandthefactthatnoevidenceinthatrespectwaspresentedbythe
AttorneyGeneral.

Conclusion
TheRespondentsfailedtodemonstratetheexistenceoftheclaimedancestralrightneeded
tobenefitfromtheprotectionthatsection35oftheConstitutionActaffordstoAboriginal
peoples,includingtheMtis.Seeingastheseancestralrightsarecommunal,andthe
RespondentfailedtoestablishthatheisarecognizedmemberofacontemporaryMtis
communitythatinheritedtheclaimedrightsfromanancestralMtiscommunity,this
constitutionalgroundofdefencemustbedismissed.Consequently,theRespondentshave
nochoicebuttoabandonthoseareasofthepublicdomainlandstheyareillegally
occupying.
ThisrulingillustrateshowdifficultitistomeettheSupremeCourtofCanadascriteriafor
establishingthepresenceofMtiscommunitiesinQubec,asopposedtothehistorical
realityofcommunitiesinWesternCanada.

[1]R.v.Powley,[2003]2SCR207,2003SCC43(hereinafterPowley).

Continuethediscussion:JoinourLinkedInGroup.

2015FaskenMartineauDuMoulinLLP

http://www.fasken.com/courtrulesthatmembersofthemetiscommunityofdomaineduroyandseigneuriedeminganhavenoancestralrights/

5/5