Page 37

Jan Advocate 2017

THE ADVOCATE V O L . 7 5 P A R T 1 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 7 35 doctrines outlined here. The judgments in these cases will determine whether or not Ms. Bennett was right to predict—or was it to promise?—that adopting and implementing the Declaration would breathe life into s. 35— or, for that matter, the rest of Canadian law. 1. UN GA Res 61/295 (13 September 2007). 2. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action (2015) at para 43, online: <http:// nctr.ca/reports.php>. 3. P Sands and P Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions, 6th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2009) Sands and Klein at §2-012. 4. See UN Charter arts 17 and 18, granting the Assembly some powers of a law-making nature in respect of the UN’s budget and membership. 5. Note, however, that even if the Declaration itself is not legally binding, some provisions within it may restate norms (anti-discrimination, the prohibition on genocide) that are already binding on states in international law through other instruments (such as international human rights treaties) or custom. 6. Sands and Klein, supra note 3 at §2-013. 7. UN GA Res 217 A (III), UN Doc A/810 (1948). 8. Sands and Klein (supra note 3 at §2-013) point to resolutions 1803 (XVII) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, 2131 (XX) on non-intervention, 2312 (XXII) on territorial asylum, and 3281 (XXIX) on the economic rights and duties of states as “examples of resolutions which cannot be ignored in any contemporary evaluation of what is the relevant rule of international law”. 9. There is a vast literature including S Allen and A Xanthaki, eds, Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011). 10. B010 v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 at para 47. 11. Heathfield v Chilton (1767) 4 Burr 2015 at 2016. 12. Saint John v Fraser Brace Overseas, 1958 SCR 263 at 268–9. 13. I do not overlook the Supreme Court of Canada’s occasional practice of having regard to non-binding international instruments on a “relevant and persuasive” basis or other, doctrinally less certain, grounds, but pass over that practice here given unpredictable in both its application and results. 14. (1612) Godbolt 201, 78 ER 122. 15. 1 William & Mary session, 2 c 2. 16. Canada’s Statement of Support on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 12 November 2010, online: <http://www. aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1309374239861/ 1309374546142, accessed 10 August 2016>. 17. Canada (Prime Minister) v Khadr, 2010 SCC 3 at para 40. 18. J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry, 1990 2 AC 418 at 500 (HL). 19. R v Badger, 1996 1 SCR 771 at para 41 Badger. See also R v George, 1966 SCR 267 at 279 (Cartwright J, dissenting), Province of Ontario v Dominion of Canada and Province of Quebec; In re Indian Claims (1895), 25 SCR 434 at 511–2 (Gwynne J, dissenting). 20. Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 2004 SCC 73 at paras 16–17. 21. Badger, supra note 19. 22. Haida, supra note 20 at para 20. 23. 1992 CanTS no 3. 24. (1995) 183 CLR 273 (HCA) at para 34. See also Tavita v Minister of Immigration, 1994 2 NZLR 257 (CA) Tavita. 25. For example, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ahmed, 1999 Imm LR 22 (Eng CA), Thomas v Bapiste, 1999 3 WLR 249 (PC) and R v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Adimi, 2000 3 WLR 434 (Eng QB). 26. For example, R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, 2004 QB 811 (Eng CA), Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, ex parte Lam (2003), 195 CLR 502 (HCA). 27. Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 2 SCR 817 at para 29. But see also para 26: “the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot lead to substantive rights outside the procedural domain”. 28. Tavita, supra note 24 at 266. 29. Notable decisions to date include Taku River Tlingit First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 YKSC 7, Nunatukavut Community Council Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 981 (“I agree with the NCC’s general premise that UNDRIP may be used to inform the interpretation of domestic law. As Justice L’Heureux Dubé stated in Baker, values reflected in international instruments, while not having the force of law, may be used to inform the contextual approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review”), Hamilton Health Sciences Corp v DH, 2015 ONCJ 229 at para 5, Snuneymuxw First Nation v Board of Education – School No 68, 2014 BCSC 1173, Simon v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 1117, Hupacasath First Nation v Canada (Foreign Affairs), 2013 FC 900, Mitchell v MNR, 2001 SCC 33 (citing the draft). 30. See Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) and Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action (2015), online: <http://nctr.ca/ reports.php>. ENDNOTES


Jan Advocate 2017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above