A Brief Review Of The Daniels Case

It is important to note that the second and third declaration are not in the official ruling but are implied in the first. Section 91(24) of the 1867 constitution is a colonial framework that allows the Crown to have authority over “Indians and Land Reserved for Indians.” The constitution did not outline who was included under the term ‘Indian’, and as a result of this Metis and non-Status Indians were not recognized under constitution. Metis people argued for the recognition under section 91(24) because it situates them as a recognized group in Canadian history. Furthermore, recognition in the constitution of 1867 creates justification for self-determination, and highlights the relationship between the Crown and the Metis people. The Daniels

The Supreme Court of Canada does not outline how these rulings are intended to be used in Canadian law, and moreover the wording can allow for some questionable translations of the court case. The Daniels case does not outline how the declarations should be outlined, and how they should be interpreted. In order for the Daniels’ Case to properly represent Indigenous peoples, it must be interpreted to benefit Indigenous people. After critically examining the Daniels case, I am skeptical that this court ruling will promote self-determination because it is vague and can be easily interpreted to promote the colonization of Indigenous peoples through the subordination of Indigenous peoples in government policies. The Daniels case needs to be critically analyzed as it is situated in its historical context. The Daniels decision is a leap forward in the recognition of Metis and non-Status Indians in the constitution, but more importantly, it is a step back because it enforces the colonial rule over Indigenous

This is highlighted in declaration two of the Daniels decision. Where it states that the federal government owes a fiduciary duty to Metis and non-status Indians as Aboriginal people. This means that the government acts in the best interest of the Metis and non-Status Indians. In writing, it seems like the government will promote the wellbeing of the Indigenous population, but as history has shown, this fiduciary obligation favors settler communities. Furthermore, the government justifies fiduciary duty because they believe the Metis people are vulnerable and unable to make their own decisions and excersize their own powers. This in turn, allows the government to unilaterally make decisions for Indigenous peoples. Fiduciary duty does not enable Metis people to be more independent, but to continue being under the control of the federal government. The connotation of fiduciary duty constructs Indigenous peoples to be in need of someone else looking out for them. This in turn, does not allow Indigenous peoples to have self-determination. Indigenous peoples do not need a colonial institution to decide what is best for them. The early treaties between Indigenous populations and Europeans were designed to be an equal relationship, with recognized independence, but now the relationship between the Crown and