Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69; The Mikisew First Nation is located in northern Alberta, within Treaty 8 territory. In 2000, the Federal Government approved a winter road, which was to run through the Mikisew’s reserve without consulting them. After the Mikisew protested, the road alignment was modified (but without consultation) to track around the boundary of the reserve. The Court held that the duty of consultation, which flows from the honour of the Crown, was breached. This is the Factum of the Intervener Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council.

: Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69; The Mikisew First Nation is located in northern Alberta, within Treaty 8 territory. In 2000, the Federal Government approved a winter road, which was to run through the Mikisew’s reserve without consulting them. After the Mikisew protested, the road alignment was modified (but without consultation) to track around the boundary of the reserve. The Court held that the duty of consultation, which flows from the honour of the Crown, was breached. This is the Factum of the Intervener Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta.

: Miller v. Canada, [1950] S.C.R. 168; The Appellants, all members of the Six Nations of Grand River, made three principal allegations. First, that the Parliament of Upper Canada authorized the flooding of lands previously granted to the Six Nations Indians with compensation to be paid to the Six Nations of Grand River, but the authorities failed to collect it. Second, the Government of Upper Canada in 1836 provided an additional parcel of Six Nations land to a private corporation, but secured no compensation for it. Third, that in 1798 the Appellants' ancestors agreed to surrender certain lands to the Crown under the understanding that the lands would be sold and the funds provided to the Appellants or their assigns, but the funds were not properly allocated. On the basis of these allegations, the Appellants sued for breaches of trust and contract. This document is the factum of the Appellants.

: Miller v. Canada, [1950] S.C.R. 168; The appellants, all members of the Six Nations of Grand River, made three principal allegations. First, that the Parliament of Upper Canada authorized the flooding of lands previously granted to the Six Nations Indians with compensation to be paid to the Six Nations of Grand River, but the authorities failed to collect it. Second, that the Government of Upper Canada in 1836 provided an additional parcel of Six Nations land to a private corporation, but secured no compensation for it. Third, that in 1798 the appellants' ancestors agreed to surrender certain lands to the Crown under the understanding that the lands would be sold and the funds provided to the appellants or their assigns, but the funds were not properly allocated. On the basis of these allegations, the Appellants sued for breaches of trust and contract. This document is the factum of the Respondent.

: Misquadis v. Canada; The Applicants allege that the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy discriminates between urban and off-reserve First Nations. It is alleged that this discrimination is in violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.); Question of law about whether Mr. Mitchell, a member of the Akweseanse Mohawk reserve, has an Aboriginal right to cross the Canadian - American border without paying taxes or tariffs. Was the trade practice an integral part of the Mohawk culture?

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.); Question of law about whether Mr. Mitchell, a member of the Akweseanse Mohawk reserve, has an Aboriginal right to cross the Canadian - American border without paying duty or tariffs. Was the trade practice an integral part of the Mohawk culture?

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.); Question of law about whether Mr. Mitchell, a member of the Akweseanse Mohawk reserve, has an Aboriginal right to cross the Canadian - American border without paying duty or tariffs. Was the trade practice an integral part of the Mohawk culture?

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.); Question of law about whether Mr. Mitchell, a member of the Akweseanse Mohawk reserve, has an Aboriginal right to cross the Canadian - American border without paying duty or tariffs. Was the trade practice an integral part of the Mohawk culture?

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.); Question of law about whether Mr. Mitchell, a member of the Akweseanse Mohawk reserve, has an Aboriginal right to cross the Canadian - American border without paying duty or tariffs. Was the trade practice an integral part of the Mohawk culture?

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.); Question of law about whether Mr. Mitchell, a member of the Akweseanse Mohawk reserve, has an Aboriginal right to cross the Canadian - American border without paying duty or tariffs. Was the trade practice an integral part of the Mohawk culture?

: Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.N.L.R. 112 (F.C.A.), which aff’; At issue in this case is what Treaty rights exist regarding duties payable on items brought across the U.S. Canada border.