The Honour of the Crown: Making Sense of Crown Liability Doctrine in Crown/Aboriginal Law in Canada
MetadataShow full item record
Simply put, Crown liability doctrine in Crown/Aboriginal Law in Canada is a mess. Demonstrably, there are fiduciary-based duties, fiduciary-based principles, an over-arching honour of the Crown principle, Crown honour-based duties, and a constitutional Crown/Aboriginal “reconciliation” imperative. How the various pieces are meant to fit together is atypically unclear. In this project, Ronald Dworkin’s rights thesis is invoked as a conceptual tool in an attempt to help bring some order to the disarray. It is argued that the Supreme Court of Canada made a fundamental (Dworkinian) mistake in the manner in which they adopted fiduciary concepts into the core of Crown/Aboriginal Law; that this mistake has led to a dysfunctional doctrine; and that the Supreme Court has implicitly acknowledged their error and are now in the process of incrementally mending their materially flawed doctrine. Crown liability doctrine in Crown/Aboriginal Law in Canada is now centrally organized around the principle that the honour of the Crown must always be upheld in applicable government dealings with Aboriginal peoples. Enforceable Crown honour-based “off-shoot” duties operate to regulate the mischief of Crown dishonour in constitutional contexts. The Supreme Court has now stated that a (non-conventional and fundamentally unresolved) Crown/Aboriginal fiduciary obligation is one such “off-shoot” duty. This emergent “essential legal framework” is meant to protect and facilitate the over-arching project of reconciling the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the de facto sovereignty of the Crown, which reconciliation project, it is argued here, is to be fundamentally undertaken by the executive and legislative branches of government working collaboratively with Aboriginal peoples. The judicial branch of government is then largely limited to the more modest task of regulating the mischief of constitutional Crown dishonour. This project ultimately purports to theorize this relatively new Crown honour-based framework, and to conceptualize what residual role there is for fiduciary accountability to play in applicable Crown/Aboriginal contexts moving forward. It is concluded there is likely only a narrow jurisdiction remaining for fiduciary accountability in Crown/Aboriginal contexts, which jurisdiction appears destined to take the form of conventional fiduciary doctrine which, as will be demonstrated, has itself been fundamentally reconfigured in recent years.
DegreeMaster of Laws (LL.M.)
CommitteeFindlay, Isobel; Henderson, James [Sakej]; Slattery, Brian
Copyright DateJanuary 2014
Key Word One: Crown
Key Word Two: Aboriginal
Key Word Three: Honour
Key Word Four: Fiduciary
Key Phrase One: The Honour of the Crown.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Crown rust in oats: when are fungicide applications to control crown rust of economic benefit to producers? May, W.E.; Irvine, R.B.; Kutcher, H.R.; Lafond, G.P.; McCartney, C.; Shirtliffe, S. (2012-03-13)
Willick, Ian Robert 1989- (2018-06-12)The abstract of this item is unavailable due to an embargo.
Kihci-Asotamâtowin (The Treaty Sovereigns' Sacred Agreements) and The Crown's Constitutional Obligations to Holders of Treaty Rights through Consultation and Restoration of Treaty Constitutionalism. Bitternose, Leah (2014-08-26)ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to assess the Crown’s Constitutional duty of consultation and its application on the holders of Treaty rights. Indigenous legal and Constitutional orders are the underpinning of the ...