Métis Rights: The Duty to Consult

There is a Crown obligation to consult First Nations, but are they also required to consult Métis people? The laws surrounding Indigenous peoples in Canada have continued to evolve over time. The division of powers in the 1867 Constitution placed “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” under federal jurisdiction. It took almost 150 years for the courts to clarify that the term ‘Indian,’ was meant to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people which has implications to the present day.

This is especially true with the Métis people of Canada. The landmark case of Daniels v Canada [2016 SCC 12] helped to clarify which groups are ‘Indian’ under federal jurisdiction. To understand this case and why it was needed, it is important to understand the duties owed by the Government of Canada to rights-bearing Indigenous Canadians.

Indigenous peoples have the right to use land in their traditional territory to hunt, fish, gather, as well as for cultural, and ceremonial purposes. The Crown (both provincial and federal) have a duty to consult with the Indigenous group that may be impacted when considering action or making a decision that may impact those Indigenous rights. For example, if a provincial government is considering an application by a proponent to mine in a certain area and there is a potential that the mining will impact Indigenous rights, the duty to consult is triggered. The Crown duty to consult was established by two significant cases: Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004 SCC 73], and Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada, [2018 SCC 40].

The law regarding the duty to consult local Métis communities is still evolving. The Daniels case was precedent setting. It clarified that the Métis are considered as ‘Indians’ under federal jurisdiction, which should mean that the federal duty to consult also applies to them for any proposed decision that may affect their rights. However, there is still uncertainty and there are still Métis communities being excluded from federal consultation.

In Alberta, the Federal government signed a Self-Government Agreement (SGA) with the Metis Nation of Alberta Association (MNAA), conditionally recognizing it as the government for the Métis Nation within Alberta, resulting in exclusive federal consultation with the MNAA. However, the term within Alberta conflicts with the fact that there are Métis Settlements and local communities within Alberta that are not part of the MNAA. This begs the question: does the MNAA consult on behalf of all Métis within Alberta?

That question was answered by the Federal Court in Métis Settlements General Council v. Canada (Crown-Indigenous Relations), [2024 FC 487], which stated that the MNAA does not represent the Métis Nation within Alberta. The Court quashed the related sections of the SGA.

In spite this ruling, some Métis communities claim that the federal government continues to ignore them by consulting only the MNAA. The Willow Lake First Nation (WLMN) is one such community. WLMN, located near Fort McMurray, Alberta, is ancestrally connected to the Métis communities in Northwest Saskatchewan. WLMN claims traditional territory on both sides of the Alberta/ Saskatchewan border, including the area where two companies, NexGen Energy and Paladin Canada, are proposing to construct uranium mines. The federal government has not consulted with WLMN about those proposed mines.

On June 24, 2025, Goodfellow & Schuettlaw filed an application in the Federal Court on behalf of WLMN seeking a judicial review of the failure of the federal government to consult with them about the proposed mines. This precedent setting case will analyze the Crown duty to consult a local Métis community as well as inter-provincial Indigenous rights, and it will challenge Canada’s slow response to the federal court in the MSGC v Canada decision.

Written by Gerald Roth, with contributions from Trishna Gill, Law Student.