{"id":74182,"date":"2016-04-14T07:05:07","date_gmt":"2016-04-14T11:05:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=74182"},"modified":"2025-03-07T08:47:44","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T13:47:44","slug":"supreme-court-rule-today-metis-off-reserve-aboriginal-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2016\/04\/14\/supreme-court-rule-today-metis-off-reserve-aboriginal-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to rule today on Metis, off reserve aboriginal rights"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"(Photo<\/a>
(Photo from Wikipedia)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

OTTAWA\u2014The Supreme Court of Canada will deliver a ruling today that will affect the relationship between the federal government and 600,000 Metis and off-reserve Indians across the country.<\/p>\n

The court will rule on whether the federal government has the same responsibility to them as to status Indians and Inuit.<\/p>\n

Dwight Dorey, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, says the ruling should finally settle whether Metis and non-status Indians should receive the same programs, services and rights as First Nations and Inuit.<\/p>\n

Jason Madden, a lawyer with the Metis National Council, says a favourable ruling would mean federal policies would have to be updated.<\/p>\n

But Dorey cautioned there would have to be negotiations on what happens next.<\/p>\n

He says the ruling would also affect provinces and municipalities that currently provide services for Metis and Indians who live off reserves.<\/p>\n

\u201cHopefully it is going to open doors for our people because we have been discriminated against for decades,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ball gets tossed back and forth between federal and provincial jurisdictions as to who holds the responsibility. This decision is hopefully going to clarify that.<\/p>\n

buy accutane online https:\/\/physiciansalliance.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/accutane.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

\u201d<\/p>\n

The congress\u2014along with several individuals\u2014went to court in 1999 to allege discrimination because they were not considered \u201cIndians\u201d under the Constitution.<\/p>\n

The Federal Court recognized them as Indians in 2013, but refused to rule the Crown had fiduciary duties and a duty to consult and negotiate with Metis and non-status Indians.<\/p>\n

buy super cialis online https:\/\/physiciansalliance.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/super-cialis.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

And while the Federal Court of Appeal upheld part of the decision, ruling Metis should remain Indians under the Constitution, it said extending that recognition to non-status Indians should be done on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n

Both the congress and the federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

buy nolvadex online https:\/\/physiciansalliance.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/nolvadex.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OTTAWA\u2014The Supreme Court of Canada will deliver a ruling today that will affect the relationship between the federal government and …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":65284,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,16],"tags":[10171,398,10175,10174,10170,10173,1144,10172],"class_list":["post-74182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-news","tag-aboriginal","tag-canada","tag-federal-court","tag-federal-court-of-appeal","tag-metis","tag-metis-national-council","tag-supreme-court","tag-supreme-court-of-canada","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74182"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74182\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":287579,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74182\/revisions\/287579"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}