Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 3 S.C.R. 550
Client
Business Council of British Columbia, Aggregate Producers Association of British Columbia, British Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Council of Forest Industries and Mining Association of British Columbia
On Thursday, November 18, 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgments in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74. Haida and Taku were heard together by the Supreme Court of Canada on March 24 and 25, 2004. Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan of our Vancouver office appeared for a coalition of business and industry who intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada in Haida with respect to the issue of a third party's duty to consult.
The appeal in Haida by the Province was dismissed while the appeal by Weyerhaeuser was allowed. Importantly, the Court held that there was no third party duty to consult with aboriginal people in respect of asserted s. 35 rights.
In both appeals, the Court gave guidance to the Province on the test for consultation and accommodation and circumscribed the exposition of that duty by the B.C. Court of Appeal in the judgments under appeal. In both cases the Court emphasized that the consultation process required good faith and reasonableness on the part of the Province and aboriginal people and that the duty of consultation did not provide a veto to aboriginal people.
A more complete analysis of these two decisions can be found by linking directly with the full text of our Aboriginal Bulletin by clicking here.
To link directly with Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, click here.
|