Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Table of ContentsviStep 3: Was the Harvesting Clause as written Constitutional?............................................... 246Does Canada have a Constitutional Role under s. 91(24) in protecting Harvesting Rights inOntario?............................................................................................................................... 247(1) Conclusion re Section 91(24) Jurisdiction/Powers ....................................................... 250(2) Conclusions re Section 109........................................................................................... 253Conclusion re Constitutionality of the Harvesting Clause as Written ................................ 257Step 4: In light of Steps 1, 2 and 3 above, What is the Answer to Question One as of 1873?258Step 5: The Effect of the 1891/1894 Legislation/Agreement ................................................. 2595(a) Did the 1891/1894 Legislation/Agreement ("the 1894 Agreement") Declare Ontario'sExisting Rights Or Give Ontario Additional Rights? ......................................................... 259Conclusions Re The Effect Of The 1891 Legislation......................................................... 2615(b) Did the 1891/1894 Legislation/Agreement Apply to Keewatin After 1912? ............. 262Conclusions re Applicability of the 1891 Legislation to Keewatin after 1912................... 264Step 6: The Devolution Argument.......................................................................................... 267Conclusions on the Devolution Argument.......................................................................... 268Step 7: The Answer to Question One ..................................................................................... 270The Mikisew Factor................................................................................................................. 27114. ANSWER TO QUESTION TWO ........................................................................................ 276Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 277Issues Raised in Argument ..................................................................................................... 2771. Is a Division of Powers analysis appropriate here? ........................................................ 277(2) Are Traditional Harvesting Rights Under the Treaty at the Core of the Federal s. 91(24)Power?................................................................................................................................. 282(3) Does Inter-jurisdictional Immunity apply to Indirect Interferences?............................ 283Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 2851. Is Division of Powers Analysis Appropriate Here? Is Ontario Unconstrained by theDivision of Powers? Are Treaty Rights Protected only by s. 35 and the Honour of theCrown?................................................................................................................................ 2852. If Ontario is Constrained by the Division of Powers, Does Inter-Jurisdictional ImmunityApply?................................................................................................................................. 2883. Does Inter-Jurisdictional Immunity Apply? ................................................................... 2904. Does s. 88 of the Indian Act Apply?............................................................................... 2905. The Answer to Question Two......................................................................................... 29115. THE EFFECT OF THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ONE AND TWO.......................... 29216. THE HONOUR OF THE CROWN...................................................................................... 29517. THE NEXT STAGE OF THIS LITIGATION ..................................................................... 30118. FINAL OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................... 301General Concern About Framing of the Issues....................................................................... 301Findings of Fact and Law re 1873-1912/Answers to Questions One and Two...................... 301Implications of This Decision................................................................................................. 30319. DISPOSITION...................................................................................................................... 303APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 304Appendix A. Summary Describing Procedural Background and History of this Litigation .. 304Appendix B: Agreement regarding Historical Documents..................................................... 3082011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)