Elin Sigurdson

A citizen of a self-governing Indigenous First Nation challenged a residency requirement in the First Nation's constitution requiring its Chief and Councillors to reside on settlement land or relocate there within 14 days of election.

The majority held that the Charter applies to the First Nation as a government by nature under s. 32(1), that the residency requirement constitutes a prima facie infringement of the appellant's s. 15(1) equality right, but that s. 25 of the Charter shields the requirement from abrogation or derogation because it protects Indigenous difference tied to ancient land-based governance practices.

Martin and O'Bonsawin JJ. dissented on the appeal, finding the s. 15(1) claim must succeed and s. 25 does not shield internal governance rules from Charter claims brought by community members.

Rowe J. dissented on the cross-appeal, finding the Charter does not apply to the First Nation's exercise of its inherent self-government right.

The appellant First Nation's reserve land was flooded in the 1920s–1930s to power hydroelectricity generation without its consent, without compensation, and without lawful authorization.

The trial judge found Canada breached its fiduciary duty and awarded $30,000,000 in equitable compensation, valuing the flooded land based on general expropriation principles and excluding the land's value to the hydroelectricity project.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred by treating compliance with minimum expropriation obligations as sufficient to discharge the fiduciary duty, which required Canada to negotiate compensation reflecting the full value of the land to the project.

The appeal was allowed and the equitable compensation award returned to the Federal Court for reassessment to include the value of the flooded land for hydroelectricity generation.

Côté J. dissented, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's compensation assessment and no evidentiary basis for the majority's approach.