What Does the Daniels Decision Mean?

Summary from the publication:

"The Supreme Court was asked to made three declarations:

• That the Métis and non-status Indians are ‘Indians’ under s. 91(24) of the Constitution;
• That the federal government owes a fiduciary duty to the Métis and non-status Indians; and
• That the Métis and non-status Indians have a right to be consulted and negotiated with in good faith by the federal government on a collective basis through representatives of their choice, respecting all rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal peoples. The first declaration required the Court to interpret s. 91(24) of the Constitution.

The Court made the first declaration. Based on the findings of fact of the trial judge, the Court held that when used in s. 91(24) of the Constitution, ‘Indians’ was intended to include the Métis and non-status Indians. The Court declined to make the second and third declarations. The existence of a fiduciary relationship and the possibility of a duty to consult was already settled law. A declaration of an overarching, non-specific fiduciary duty to the Métis or duty to consult the Métis would have been a significant change in the law.."

Please read the rest of the publication to understand the Daniels Decision.