Alberta Metis Settlements and Indian Status

On Friday last week the Alberta Court of Appeals issued a very interesting ruling regarding Alberta's Metis Settlement Act: Cunningham v. Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 239. Under the statute as it stood, most people who were registered Indians or Inuk could not become members of a Metis settlement and those members who became registered Indians or Inuk would lose their settlement membership. The case arose out of local politics in the Peavine Settlement, but the implications seem much broader. The effect of the decision, should it stand, is to remove any statutory bar to Indians and Inuk to be members of a Metis settlement due to their Indian/Inuk status alone and the exception to that bar of specific council by-laws or General Council policy. In other words, the Province can no longer explicitly deny Metis settlement membership based on an individual's Indian/Inuk status, nor can an individual settlement council, on a whim, remove or instate members based on their Indian/Inuk status. The court rejected both a s. 25 Charter argument and a request to delay the effect of the act.

I may be over-, under- or mis- stating the implications of the judgment. I invite readers with more expertise in the area to debate the implications of the decision.

Comments

[Brock]

I will have more to say on this interesting decision after briefing it for next week.

Definitely lots to say about this decision.