Source: http://www.jackwoodward.ca/june-2016-updates-to-native-law/
Timestamp: 2018-04-21 07:16:57
Document Index: 475852254

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2040', '§857', '§1980', '§858', '§859', '§812', '§1485', '§1017']

June 2016 Updates to Native Law – Jack Woodward, lawyer and author
June 12, 2016 Native Law Updates no . Comments
The June 2016 updates to Native Law are now available in the looseleaf version as the text, as well as on ProView. Some of the new information available in this release is:
A new judicial comment on the text. Justice Victoria Starr relied on two passages in Native Law in a recent Ontario Court of Justice decision (2016 ONCJ 323). See page JC-2.
Demise of the Financial Transparency Act. This Release contains updates relating to the current status of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, including recent litigation, and statements from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Carolyn Bennet regarding the Act’s future. See paragraphs 3§2040 and 7§857.
Access to Information and Privacy. This Release contains updates to commentary on freedom of information and privacy legislation, and the applicability of this legislation to First Nations and band councils. A review of the “obtained in confidence” rule is included. See paragraphs 3§1980 and following, 7§858 and 7§859.
Conflicts with municipalities over s. 35 rights. New commentary is added concerning the potential for conflict between municipal by-laws and constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights. Ontario has a process under the Planning Act to assist in resolving such conflicts. See paragraphs 4§812 and following and 5§1485.
Dealing with federal discrimination in child welfare. INAC has begun making improvements to the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada following the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s ruling that the program was operating in a discriminatory manner. See paragraph 19§1017.
Cost of litigation. The Coastal First Nations were awarded public interest special costs by the British Columbia Supreme Court after successfully arguing that the test developed in Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 was applicable to their case. See page 402.24 under the heading ‘(iii) public interest special costs’.
← Updates to Native Law – April 2016
Case Comment: A Brief Critique of Malcolm v Fort McMurray First Nation, 2016 FC 672 →