Ed­mon­to­ni­ans closely watch­ing land­mark cases as po­ten­tial turn­ing points for In­dige­nous

StarMetro Edmonton - - EDMONTON - OMAR MOSLEH

The Supreme Court of Canada heard ap­peals on two cases with po­ten­tially far-reach­ing im­pli­ca­tions for the rights of In­dige­nous peo­ples in Canada on Thurs­day.

The Supreme Court is­sued a rul­ing in one of the cases: Cour­tor­eille v. Canada.

That case stems from a 2015 law­suit filed by the Mikisew Cree First Na­tion, which ar­gued that the for­mer Con­ser­va­tive gov­ern­ment should have con­sulted them when mak­ing changes to Canada’s en­vi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion and reg­u­la­tory laws.

On Thurs­day, the Supreme Court ruled that fed­eral min­is­ters do not have to con­sult In­dige­nous groups when draft­ing leg­is­la­tion be­cause it would in­ter­fere with a sep­a­ra­tion of power and al­low the courts to “im­prop­erly tres­pass onto the leg­is­la­ture’s do­main.”

The other ap­peal heard by Canada’s top court re­lates to an or­der from the Al­berta Court of Ap­peal in 2015 for a re­trial in the case of Cindy Gladue, an In­dige­nous woman who was found dead in an Ed­mon­ton ho­tel room in 2011.

Al­though Gladue’s ac­cused killer Bradley Bar­ton was ac­quit­ted, the Al­berta Court of Ap­peal found the trial judge erred in al­low­ing ev­i­dence re­lat­ing to Gladue’s sex­ual his­tory to open the door to racist and sex­ist stereo­types, which tainted the jury’s de­lib­er­a­tions.

Dur­ing the trial, Gladue was re­ferred to as a “pros­ti­tute” 25 times and as a “Na­tive” 26 times. Read about how Bar­ton is ap­peal­ing the or­der for a re­trial in the full story at thes­tar.com/ed­mon­ton

Cour­tor­eille v. Canada de­cides whether In­dige­nous peo­ple should be con­sulted on leg­is­la­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.