Canadian Lawyer

a wide swath of stuff��� involving family, criminal, and human rights law ��� ranging from child-welfare cases to sentencing principles that require courts to take into account the over-representation of aboriginals in the criminal justice system. Metallic points to two recent developments she says have strengthened legal avenues for aboriginals who want to assert their rights in other areas, particularly human rights. One is the 2008 repeal of s. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prevented aboriginals on reserves from pursuing certain types of human rights claims against the federal government. ���Since this repeal happened we are now seeing more human rights cases,��� says Metallic. She names one potentially far-reaching challenge, currently before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which human rights advocates cite as a crucial test of how far the act will go in protecting First Nations. In the challenge, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations argue the federal government, which is responsible for funding social programs on reserves, is discriminating by spending 22 per cent less on child-welfare services than provincial governments provide for children who live off reserves. The stakes could be ultimately much wider than child welfare. If First Nations win, it could have a potential impact on other federally funded services on reserves, such as health, education, and police. In fact, another human rights challenge is underway in northern Ontario, where chiefs of the Mushkegowuk First Nations are seeking equal policing services. Meanwhile, Metallic is involved in a separate legal challenge to services on reserves ��� in which 17 aboriginal groups in Atlantic Canada have filed a judicial review of planned federal cuts to First Nations social assistance to bring payments in line with provincial rates. In that Federal Court case, social issues and the duty to consult intersect, says Metallic. ���We���re trying to expand the duty to consult,��� she says. ���Governments are saying social programs aren���t part of aboriginal rights under s. 35, at least as far as the courts have understood them, so we have no obligation to consult with you prior to making changes to any of these things on reserves that may affect you. So we���re trying to say in this case maybe you do.��� The First Nations are relying on the established administrative law principle of procedural fairness to argue that the duty to consult is not necessarily confined to cases involving s. 35 Charter rights. Another possible tool for First Nations is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada signed in 2010. The international document, although not legally binding, could provide moral leverage for First Nations, says Metallic, who notes it contains a provision requiring governments to consult with indigenous peoples on matters of public policy that could have a detrimental effect. The provision was among the contentious elements that made the Harper government reject the rights blueprint for three years after its inception. One of the government���s stated reasons at the time was that one of the articles ��� affirming that states ���shall consult and co-operate in good faith with the IT���S BACK Fill out our short survey for a chance to win 1 of 5 Kobo mini e-readers! Canadian Lawyer���s most requested survey takes just minutes to complete at www.canadianlawyermag.com/surveys and will provide valuable information about what the nation���s lawyers are charging for many common transactions and legal services. Survey closes April 8, 2013. 2013 26 Untitled-3 21 0 1 3 April www.CANADIAN L a w ye r m a g . c o m LEGAL FEES SURVEY 13-03-14 3:15 PM

• Cover