Gitxaała Nation is relying on three main heads of argument: one, that B.C. has failed to fulfill its duty to consult; two, that B.C.’s mineral grant regime is inconsistent with the honour of the Crown and therefore must be reformed according to constitutional law; and three, that the province’s mineral grant regime is inconsistent with UNDRIP and therefore must be reformed according to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).
Under the duty to consult argument, Gitxaała Nation argues that either the gold commissioner, who is in charge of granting mineral claims, or the B.C. government, or both, have failed to use their power to require that the constitutional imperative of consultation and accommodation be carried out prior to the granting of the challenged mineral claims. Given the failure to consult, Gitxaała argues that the mineral claims must be overturned.
Gitxaała also argues that B.C.’s entire regime for granting mineral tenures is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of the honour of the Crown. The honour of the Crown is a foundational principle that recognizes that Indigenous people were here first, and that they were never conquered. The tension between the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty and the pre-existing sovereignty, rights and occupation of Indigenous peoples creates a “special relationship” that requires the Crown to act honourably in its dealings. The honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealings with Indigenous peoples and is binding on the Crown. Gitxaała argues that B.C.’s choice to set up an automatic online regime for granting mineral tenures, which inherently prevents any constitutionally-required consultation or accommodation from occurring, is incompatible with the honour of the Crown and cannot be allowed to stand.
Gitxaała Nation also argues that the mineral grant regime is inconsistent with UNDRIP because it results in Indigenous peoples being automatically dispossessed of important aspects of their title and rights to land without free, prior and informed consent, in fact without any consultation or notice whatsoever. Gitxaała argues that DRIPA legally requires B.C. to take measures to reform the mineral grant regime so that it is consistent with UNDRIP.
Gitxaała is asking the Court to intervene and assist in correcting the BC government’s failings in this regard, with a view to securing systemic changes to BC’s Mineral Tenure Act to bring it into alignment with the UNDRIP.
At the first instance, Gitxaala was successful when the court decided the automatic mineral claim registry did violate Gitxaala’s rights but the court decided UNDRIP did not apply and did not quash the permits approved. Therefore the Gitxaala Nation is appealing this part of the court decision.