{"id":31253,"date":"2024-11-29T12:35:16","date_gmt":"2024-11-29T19:35:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/?post_type=library&#038;p=31253"},"modified":"2024-11-29T12:37:13","modified_gmt":"2024-11-29T19:37:13","slug":"recent-honour-of-the-crown-jurisprudence-and-the-problem-of-legal-uncertainty","status":"publish","type":"library","link":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/library\/recent-honour-of-the-crown-jurisprudence-and-the-problem-of-legal-uncertainty\/","title":{"rendered":"Recent Honour of the Crown Jurisprudence and the Problem of Legal Uncertainty"},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This article discusses the ways in which the Supreme Court of Canada has applied the honour of the Crown to dramatically expand Crown liability in novel ways, with a particular focus on the majority decisions in Manitoba M\u00e9tis Federation v. Canada and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (2018). In Manitoba M\u00e9tis Federation, the Court recognized a new Crown duty of diligent implementation, exempting claims based on breaches of that duty from statutory limitation periods and the equitable doctrine of laches. Meanwhile, Mikisew (2018) left open the possibility that the honour of the Crown could be engaged by the legislative process. This paper argues that notwithstanding the significance of these cases, they do little to advance substantive recognition of Aboriginal rights, and instead serve to perpetuate legal uncertainty for legislators and Indigenous communities. Further, the majority opinions in both cases demonstrate a troubling willingness by the Court to depart from the norms of civil and appellate procedure in a way that ultimately undermines the coherence and clarity of its decisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"template":"","library--year":[108],"law-and-freedom":[],"library-theme":[171],"dicey-law-review":[78],"main-categories":[67],"class_list":["post-31253","library","type-library","status-publish","hentry","library--year-108","library-theme-aboriginal-rights","dicey-law-review-volume-2","main-categories-dicey-law-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/31253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/library"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/31253\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"library--year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library--year?post=31253"},{"taxonomy":"law-and-freedom","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/law-and-freedom?post=31253"},{"taxonomy":"library-theme","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library-theme?post=31253"},{"taxonomy":"dicey-law-review","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/dicey-law-review?post=31253"},{"taxonomy":"main-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/main-categories?post=31253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}