The country’s highest court upheld the Yukon First Nation’s request that elected officials live on the settlement.
In a decision released Thursday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the residency requirement for the Vuntut Gwich’in Nation (VGFN) is constitutional, appealing the appeal of Cindy Dixon, a Vntut Gwich’in Nation living in Whitehorse. was rejected. It violated that requirement.
“The residency requirement protects Indigenous differences,” the court said. “Requiring VGFN leaders to reside in settlements helps maintain the leadership’s connection to the land, which is deeply rooted in the VGFN’s unique culture and governance practices.”
In a split decision, the court ruled that the Charter applies to VGFN residency requirements because First Nations are considered government entities.
“The Charter applies to the residency requirement because its enactment and enforcement by the VGFN constitutes a specific governmental activity.”
The Supreme Court’s decision mirrors that of the lower courts.
Ms Dixon launched her legal challenge in 2019 after being prevented from running for Buntut Gwich’in City Council because she lived in Whitehorse. The Buntut Gwich’in government is based in the fly-in community of Old Crow, Yukon, about 500 miles north of Whitehorse.
At the time, the Buntut Gwich’in government required all candidates to reside in the settlement. The requirement was later changed to require MPs to move to a permanent place within 14 days of being elected.
Dixon argued to the Yukon Supreme Court that the First Nations residency requirement violated the Charter’s right to equality. First Nations never agreed to apply the Charter during their autonomy negotiations with Canada, arguing that they had an inherent right to govern themselves and preserve their culture and traditions.
A Yukon Supreme Court judge ruled in 2020 that the Charter was applicable to the Buntut Gwich’in government and that the 14-day deadline for MPs to move to Old Crow was unconstitutional, but the residency requirement itself could stand. It was decided that
Violation of Charter Rights
The case primarily centered on three Charter issues: whether the Charter applied to VGFN, whether Dixon’s rights had been violated, and whether the violation was overcome by the Charter’s protection of Indigenous rights. Ta.
In other words, the court needed to determine whether the VGFN was an autonomous government and whether the Charter applied to the VGFN.
“The Charter applies primarily, but not exclusively, to the VGFN and to citizens like Mr. Dixon, because the VGFN is essentially a government,” the court said.
The court also said that although Mr Dixon’s Charter rights had been violated, his case was justified under the Charter’s provisions protecting collective Indigenous rights.
In other words, this section acts as a shield to protect the residency requirement from Mr. Dixon’s claims.
“This distinction based on her non-resident status reinforces and exacerbates the historic and continuing disadvantages faced by Indigenous peoples living off their traditional lands,” the court said.
But Justices Sheila Martin and Michelle Obonsowin disagreed, saying challenges to the Charter should go to court without being stopped by Article 25.
“A groundbreaking moment”
Vuntut Gwitchin chief Pauline Frost said Thursday she was pleased with the decision, which she said made the law more clear.
“This gives us more certainty,” she said.
Bridget Gilbride, Dixon’s lawyer, told CBC she was disappointed in the decision, but satisfied that the court found that the Vuntut Gwich’in people have Charter rights with respect to First Nations government. said in a statement.
Gilbride said he was pleased with the decision, which recognizes Indigenous self-government as a government under Canadian law, calling it “a step forward for Canada’s Indigenous peoples.”
Ryan Beaton, a Vancouver-based lawyer who specializes in Indigenous rights and title litigation, said the ruling sets precedent for how the Charter applies to Indigenous governments.
“This is a landmark moment,” Beaton said. “That research has been taken up by the courts and is beginning to provide a framework for how Indigenous law relates to other parts of the Canadian Constitution.”
Mr Beaton said there was nothing in the Charter that said it should apply to self-government.
“This is a big question that the court answered today that it hasn’t answered before,” Beaton said.
Beaton also said the ruling opens the door for Indigenous groups currently negotiating autonomy agreements to debate how the Charter should or should not apply.
VGFN attorney and VGFN member Chris Statnik said the decision affirms indigenous peoples’ right to self-governance.
“That space is preserved for us to continue that and pursue our purpose as Indigenous peoples,” Statnik said. “These things that we fought so hard to win have a place in our lives and are important.”
