In Wesley v Alberta, 2024 ABCA 276, the appellant court was tasked with determining
whether claims alleging breach of treaty, unextinguished Aboriginal title, and other Aboriginal rights are statute barred by the Limitations Act, RSA 2000 and Limitations of Actions Act.
Factual Background
By way of background, the Stoney Nakoda First Nations are amongst the signatories of Treaty 7. In 2003, they issued a claim against the government of Alberta and Canada which sought Aboriginal title, claims, and rights to land outside of Treaty 7. The claim also alleged that their constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights and titles had been breached by Alberta and Canada for many years through the exploitation of mines and minerals, forestry resources, and energy production from the claimed lands.
Alberta acknowledged that some of the land in question had been taken up for settlement or otherwise developed, but in a manner which complied with Treaty 7. They argued that since at least 1970, the Stoney Nakoda Nations had been aware Alberta considered that Treaty 7 constituted a surrender and ceding of title to the subject lands. Thus, their claims were barred by expiration of the limitation period. The Stoney Nakoda First Nations took the position that limitation periods are constitutionally inapplicable to their claims by virtue of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the “Constitution Act”), and the use of a limitations defence offended the honour of the crown.
The case management judge held that the Limitations Act did not offend section 35 of the Constitution Act. Therefore, the claims submitted by the Stoney Nakoda Nations were not exempt from a limitations defence. However, while some of the claims were barred due to the expired limitation periods, claims for declaratory relief could proceed.
Appeal Decision
Stoney Nakoda Nations submitted to the appellant court that limitation defences are inconsistent with the promise of reconciliation, inconsistent with the honour of the Crown, deny the Stoney Nakoda Nations access to justice, and are a violation of fundamental justice. Alberta challenged the finding that the relief Stoney Nakoda Nations was seeking was declaratory.
Siding with Alberta, the appellant court held that the limitations defence did not compromise the honour of the Crown, and that section 35 of the Constitution Act did not bar limitation defences from Aboriginal rights claims. Dismissing the Stoney Nakoda Nations appeal, the court held that Alberta is entitled to immunity from the remedial claims, and that the Stoney Nakoda Nations are not entitled to the declaratory relief claimed against Alberta.
Wesley v Alberta, 2024, marks a foundational constitutional law decision, asserting that Aboriginal rights and claims can be statute barred. Given the nature of constitutional law, it likely that this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. For a more in-depth analysis of the court’s reasoning in Wesley v Alberta, 2024, read the court’s complete reasoning here.
