In the fall of 2019, RAVEN was approached by two Chiefs of the Likhts’amisyu clan who requested support for their Constitutional/Charter challenge. RAVEN accepted the application and has entered into a formal agreement with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs. We are fundraising to provide access to justice for Hereditary Chiefs to pay the steep legal costs of pursuing this legal challenge.  

With the Charter Challenge that is actively before the courts, Wet’suwet’en’s aim is to force Canada to bring carbon emissions to within the targets set by the Paris Agreement. A win would give Nations — and all Canadians — an instrument to hold governments accountable to climate commitments by forcing proposed fossil fuel projects to be evaluated according to their impacts on people’s rights to "life, liberty, and security of the person".

The Wet’suwet’en governance system, dating back for thousands of years, is based on Houses and Clans. Central to Wet’suwet’en government, law, social structure and world view is the Feast system. Dinï ze’ and Ts’akë ze (Hereditary Head Chiefs and Wing Chiefs of each House) draw their legitimacy neither through elections, nor through birthright alone (as in European monarchies) but through the Feast House process. Similar to the potlach, the Feast validates the chiefs’ authority and legitimacy according to Wet’suwet’en law. Before any Feast, there are many informal and semi-formal meetings at which ideas are introduced, discussed and a consensus built within the host House and among the other Wet’suwet’en Houses. The English term “hereditary leadership” doesn’t really convey the complexity of this highly participatory governance system.

Canadian law recognizes Indigenous governance in general and the Wet’suwet’en House and Clan system in particular. This was very clearly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1997 Delgamuukw decision. The Supreme Court of Canada described the system of Clans and Houses with Hereditary Chiefs as “the fundamental premise of both the Gitksan and the Wet’suwet’en peoples.”

Subsequently, the BC Supreme Court held, in Canadian Forest Products Inc v Sam, that “the Wet’suwet’en occupation and use of land is organized by the clan and house system upon which the law and essential social structure is ultimately based.” The BC Supreme Court went on to say that “each Wet’suwet’en chief has rights and responsibilities specific to the particular territory over which that chief is given a duty to protect. The rights and responsibilities are confirmed, coordinated, and directed to the common good, in other words, governed, through the feast,” which is “central to Wet’suwet’en society and government”.

The two legal challenges RAVEN is currently supporting were brought by Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs representing all Wet’suwet’en Clans.

Wet’suwet’en are currently awaiting trial for their Charter climate challenge, with a court date expected in 2024.

Acting in unity, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs had, in an earlier case, sought a Judicial Review of a project extension for Coastal GasLink’s pipeline. They opposed the CGL permits granted by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO). The action — which was also supported by RAVEN — argued that the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office had a duty to assess new evidence of the project’s harms, which in this case meant taking into account the findings of the Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which found direct links between extractive industries, “man camps” and increased violence against Indigenous women. The BCEAO was also required to take into account Coastal GasLink’s record of non-compliance with previous permit conditions. Unfortunately, this case was unsuccessful and is no longer active.

All the funds raised for Wet'suwet'en campaign go to Indigenous litigation. 85% of the funds raised go to Wet'suwet'en to fund their legal challenge. RAVEN receives 15% of campaign funds raised to sustain our operations.

If a legal challenge is terminated, and the money raised exceeds the litigation expenses, we place the remaining funds into the Discretionary Litigation Fund. We use the money in the Discretionary Litigation Fund to add funds to any of our litigation campaigns that need extra funds for any reason (e.g., to respond to a Crown motion, or to commission additional expert reports).