This is an extract of our Crown Obligations document, which we sell as part of our Aboriginal Law Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Victoria; University Of Toronto students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Aboriginal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Crown Obligations Fiduciary Duty Scope, Origins
-sources: IA, honour of Cr, interdependence of nations, historical and assumed power of Cr
-entrenched in s. 35(1), enforceable via CL, also sui generis (Rotman)
-exists bw at least 2 parties, one who possesses equitable obligations
-generally: protection of vulnerable person (Weinrib) by party exercising discretion of power to affect legal interests (Blueberry River Band; Galamos)
-thus arises from specific context of rels, not from specific category of rels or at large (Wewaykum, LAC Minerals)
-Sparrow: duty exists to supervise high degree of discretionary control assumed by Cr over FN; must include interp of historic and current rels
-Haida: where the ct has assumed discretionary control, honour of Cr gives rise to FD, need not be voluntary or consensual
-Metis Federation: honour of Cr underlies fiduciary rels but doesn't derive from it
-Binnie- not all obligations are fiduciary; doesn't provide a general indemnity, is very specific
-Guerin: land transfer re surrender of reserves- but not limited to this context
> (Wewaykum; Sparrow)
-Osoyoos: expropriation; inalienability of reserve land
-Gladstone: resource allocation
-exists beyond govt, e.g. band to members (Metis Fed, Chief Mtn)
-rejection of duty:
-Stony Indian band: litigation
-Virginia Fontaine Treatment Centre: defendants cannot simply be FN, need to be in an actual rels Framework 1). Is There a Relationship?
-Weywakum: 2 step test:
- ii) id interest of dispute;
-ii) determine if Cr has assumed control of subject of dispute
- key question does discretionary power exist in a different way than w public?
-open ended, no definitive feature of rels
-interpretive approach is functional: types of rels categorized as F should be open ended; context specific
-types of rels that may have been described as such in the past do not inherently mean they are fid or are exhaustive
-need to look at particulars of rels, not parties themselves (LAC Minerals)
-examine nature and trust in rels, rels of un = power
-context outside of rels is irrelevant
-look at nature and importance of action
-parties need not be persons
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Aboriginal Law Notes.