An NWT Supreme Court justice has ruled that a confidential draft Akaitcho agreement-in-principle cannot be used in a case that could have wide implications for Indigenous land rights.
The case began in 2010, when the NWT commissioner initiated legal proceedings against Agnes and Clayton Christensen, arguing they were trespassing on public land along the Ingraham Trail near the turnoff to Dettah.
The Christensens, who are members of Deninu Kųę́ First Nation, responded two years later to assert they were exercising their rights under Treaty 8 to occupy land in their traditional territory.
In 2023, the Christensens began pursuing a class action on behalf of all Indigenous people whose ancestors signed Treaty 8. They argue Canada has not fulfilled the right of members who choose not to live on-reserve to separately claim 160 acres of land.
Treaty 8 covers a large area, spanning 840,000 square kilometres across parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the NWT.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
The Christensens are also seeking an order granting them permanent possession of the land along the Ingraham Trail.
The NWT commissioner has argued that the lawyer representing the Christensens has a conflict of interest and cannot represent both the Christensens’ individual interests and the collective interests of a class.
In their response to that argument, the Christensens said they planned to rely on a draft agreement-in-principle being negotiated between the federal and NWT governments and Akaitcho First Nations, which includes the Deninu Kųę́, Yellowknives Dene and Łútsël K’é Dene First Nations.
In a ruling earlier this month, Justice Sheila MacPherson sided with the federal government in finding that confidentiality provisions shield the agreement-in-principle from being made public, as first reported by CKLB.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
MacPherson noted that the agreement is subject to change as land claim negotiations continue and is not relevant to the conflict-of-interest issue.
“It may well be that a final agreement will speak to the issue of land selection, and those who may be affected by the final agreement’s terms might wish to seek clarification as to the relationship between Treaty No 8 rights and a final agreement,” she said.
“However, at this stage, that is all speculation.”
The broader conflict-of-interest argument has yet to be settled.
