Ktunaxa Nation Case Analysis
Ktunaxa Nation originated following an “unsuccessful” consultation and accommodation under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 with Ktunaxa Nation to allow Glacier Resources Ltd to build a ski resort on sacred Qat’muk land in the 1990s. No Indigenous treaty included this area and it was characterized as Crown land.
A two-decade consultation process with the Ktunaxa Nation led to the late position adoption by the appellant stating the ski resort would drive out the Grizzly Bear Spirit and irrevocably impair their religious beliefs and practices. This position was contrary to resort construction. The Minister believed he reasonably consulted with the Aboriginal people and approved the project. This case is two-pronged. The first pertains to …show more content…
35. They petitioned the British Columbia Superior Court to overturn the appeal. The chamber judges dismissed the petition for judicial review and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. Then, they appealed to the Superior Court of Canada (‘The Court’) to hear their case.
The basic legal question in dispute was two-fold. The first was whether s. 2(a) of the Charter, the freedom to hold religious beliefs and manifest those beliefs, included the protection of the spiritual focal point of worship and the subjective spiritual meaning one derives from it. The second part of the legal question was whether the Minister’s decision that it had reasonably consulted was reasonable under s. 35.
The appellants argued the decision to approve the resort construction violated their freedom of religion right protected by s. 2(a). Building the resort would drive out the Grizzly Bear Spirit, a spirit central to their beliefs and practices. They argued the Big M Drug Mart definition of the 2(a) right included the belief that freedom of religion had a communal aspect that the state could not …show more content…
The Ktunaxa argued the consultation process was unreasonable for several reasons. First, the government did not properly characterize the right. It failed to comprehend the role of knowledge keepers. It treated the spiritual right as weak. It failed to address the impact of the project on the Ktunaxa’s right. Finally, they argued the accommodation was not made with respect to the spiritual right. For the appellant, the consultation was not unreasonable. The extensive accommodation measures relating to the continued ability of the Ktunaxa to exercise their Aboriginal rights, balanced against the societal benefits of the project were reasonable.
The Court ruled in favor of dismissing the appeal. McLachlin et al ruled the Minister’s decision did not violate the Ktunaxa’s religious freedom as their claim fell outside the scope of s. 2(a). The Minister’s conclusion that the consultation was sufficient to satisfy s. 35 was not
A two-decade consultation process with the Ktunaxa Nation led to the late position adoption by the appellant stating the ski resort would drive out the Grizzly Bear Spirit and irrevocably impair their religious beliefs and practices. This position was contrary to resort construction. The Minister believed he reasonably consulted with the Aboriginal people and approved the project. This case is two-pronged. The first pertains to …show more content…
35. They petitioned the British Columbia Superior Court to overturn the appeal. The chamber judges dismissed the petition for judicial review and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. Then, they appealed to the Superior Court of Canada (‘The Court’) to hear their case.
The basic legal question in dispute was two-fold. The first was whether s. 2(a) of the Charter, the freedom to hold religious beliefs and manifest those beliefs, included the protection of the spiritual focal point of worship and the subjective spiritual meaning one derives from it. The second part of the legal question was whether the Minister’s decision that it had reasonably consulted was reasonable under s. 35.
The appellants argued the decision to approve the resort construction violated their freedom of religion right protected by s. 2(a). Building the resort would drive out the Grizzly Bear Spirit, a spirit central to their beliefs and practices. They argued the Big M Drug Mart definition of the 2(a) right included the belief that freedom of religion had a communal aspect that the state could not …show more content…
The Ktunaxa argued the consultation process was unreasonable for several reasons. First, the government did not properly characterize the right. It failed to comprehend the role of knowledge keepers. It treated the spiritual right as weak. It failed to address the impact of the project on the Ktunaxa’s right. Finally, they argued the accommodation was not made with respect to the spiritual right. For the appellant, the consultation was not unreasonable. The extensive accommodation measures relating to the continued ability of the Ktunaxa to exercise their Aboriginal rights, balanced against the societal benefits of the project were reasonable.
The Court ruled in favor of dismissing the appeal. McLachlin et al ruled the Minister’s decision did not violate the Ktunaxa’s religious freedom as their claim fell outside the scope of s. 2(a). The Minister’s conclusion that the consultation was sufficient to satisfy s. 35 was not