Manitoba Métis Federation: The Supreme Court of Canada decided not to hear the Manitoba Métis Federation’s (MMF) appeal of the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s (MBCA) decision in Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v Brian Pallister et al. Important issues raised by the MMF remain to be decided by the courts, and the Crown’s duty to consult with and accommodate the Manitoba Métis on significant Hydro projects remains unfulfilled.

This MMF-Manitoba Hydro agreement was intended to address the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult with and accommodate the Manitoba Métis regarding certain Manitoba Hydro projects. After the Pallister government directed Manitoba Hydro not to honour its agreement with the MMF and had repeatedly refused to meet with the leadership of Manitoba Hydro to discuss important issues, nine of 10 members of the Manitoba Hydro board of directors resigned.

Despite this mass resignation, Premier Pallister denied that his government had done anything wrong and denied that the honour of the Crown applied in any way to his government’s decisions, despite the obvious and direct effects on the Manitoba Métis.

The MBCA ultimately determined that the honour of the Crown did apply to the Pallister government’s decision to direct Manitoba Hydro on how to treat the MMF. However, the Court concluded that the decision did not breach the honour of the Crown, even though the Pallister government did not follow the terms of the dispute resolution process the parties had previously agreed to.

The Court recognized that while the Pallister government could direct Manitoba Hydro not to honour its specific agreement with the MMF, the Crown still had a constitutional duty to consult with and accommodate the Manitoba Métis, and the Pallister government’s direction “did not preclude” a future agreement addressing these obligations.

The MMF sought to appeal this MBCA decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear the MMF’s appeal. Despite this, the MMF had previously commenced separate civil litigation in respect of the Pallister government’s termination of the agreement between Manitoba, the MMF and Manitoba Hydro, amongst other matters. In declining to enjoin that termination, Chief Justice Glenn D. Joyal, of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench emphasized that the duty to consult and accommodate would continue. MMF’s litigation includes a claim for damages and related relief, and raises important issues that are not affected by today’s ruling. The case will be dealt with by the Manitoba courts.