Click here for a PDF version of this memo.

To: MNO Citizens

From: MNO President Gary Lipinski

Date: July 29, 2015

Subject: Update on Daniels Case

Please accept the following as an update on the Harry Daniels v. Canada case which is now scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 8, 2015 in Ottawa.

This week, the Métis National Council (“MNC”), along with other interveners, filed their written arguments with the Supreme Court of Canada in the Daniels case. A copy of the MNC’s filed factum is available here.

As a member of the MNC Board of Governors, I had the opportunity to review the proposed factum prior to it being filed with the Court. I was pleased that the factum includes multiple references to the Powley case (which recognizes the rights-bearing Métis community in the Sault Ste. Marie region) as well as our harvesting agreement with Ontario, including, reference to our litigation in R. v. Laurin, Lemieux and Lemieux (which upheld our harvesting agreement with Ontario).

In addition, in listing just some of the outstanding Métis land related claims outside of Manitoba, the MNC factum identifies the Halfbreed Adhesion to Treaty 3 as well as Treaty Commissioner Robinson’s promise to the Sault Ste. Marie that they would maintain “free & full possession of their lands on which they now reside” as just two of many.

I am also pleased that Métis lawyer Jason Madden has been added to the legal team representing the MNC at the Supreme Court of Canada. If the MNC is granted time for oral argument at the hearing, Jason will also be making oral arguments on behalf of the Métis Nation.

The MNO’s leadership will continue to provide update on the Daniels case to our citizens as the October hearing date approaches. I am also attaching a recent update memo on the Daniels case that was prepared for the Métis Nation of Alberta, which provides additional information on the case as well as some answers to frequently asked questions. A copy of this document is also available here.

Click here to read more about the Daniels v. Canada court case.