Blog

Disclaimer: These posts are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have legal questions about your specific situation, get in touch with our office or another lawyer you trust.

Indigenous Justice in Canada: A UN Wake-Up Call

A recent report by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UN‑HRC) has sounded the alarm on longstanding, systemic injustices faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada’s justice system — an issue that remains one of the most urgent human‑rights challenges in the country.

This is more than policy or statistics: it reflects real impacts on lives, communities, and generations.

What the Report Highlights

The UN report underscores persistent overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples — First Nations, Inuit, and Métis — across all stages of the criminal justice system, from policing to sentencing and incarceration.
It recognizes that colonial history, systemic racism, socio‑economic inequality, and lack of culturally appropriate legal supports contribute to disproportionate contact with the system and harsher outcomes for Indigenous people.
The report calls on Canada to honor its human‑rights obligations — including under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) — which requires law, policy, and justice mechanisms to respect Indigenous rights, laws, and self‑determination.

What This Means for Indigenous Justice — and Communities

Justice must be culturally safe. The standard justice system often fails to account for Indigenous experiences: intergenerational trauma, land-based cultures, communal care traditions, and social contexts. The UN’s critique reminds us that “justice” cannot be one-size-fits-all.
Indigenous laws and legal traditions deserve respect and revival. True justice means recognizing that Indigenous communities have their own legal orders, governance systems, and justice practices — not just relying on colonial courts and sentencing frameworks.
Overrepresentation isn’t just a statistic — it’s a crisis of rights and dignity. For many Indigenous individuals and families, contact with the justice system carries consequences: loss of freedom, community disruption, trauma, and erosion of trust in institutions.
Long-term systemic reform is essential. Band-aid fixes, occasional outreach, or superficial consultation aren’t enough. Sustainable change demands structural reform, accountability, and co‑development of legal solutions with Indigenous peoples.

What’s Being Done — And What Still Needs Work

In response to long‑standing calls for reform, the federal government released the Indigenous Justice Strategy (IJS) in March 2025 — a collaborative plan co-developed with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis partners.

The IJS aims to:

Address systemic discrimination and over‑representation of Indigenous people in the justice system.
Advance the revitalization of Indigenous laws, legal orders, and community‑based justice systems.
Provide culturally appropriate, trauma‑informed, and holistic responses — especially for Indigenous women, 2SLGBTQI+ people, youth, and other marginalized groups.

However, as the UN report confirms, much remains to be done. Progress has been slow or uneven. Persistent barriers include lack of stable funding, inadequate consultation, systemic racism, and insufficient mechanisms for transparency and accountability.

What This Means for Our Work & Commitment

At Perrie Law, we believe justice must be grounded in truth, equity, and respect for Indigenous rights. The findings of the UN report — and the ongoing gaps highlighted by the IJS process — reinforce why culturally‑safe legal representation, community‑centered advocacy, and support for Indigenous legal traditions are more essential now than ever.

We remain committed to:

Supporting access to justice for Indigenous individuals.
Advocating for recognition of Indigenous laws, identity, and self‑determination.
Standing with communities calling for systemic reform and equity in the legal system.

Because justice isn’t a privilege — it’s a right.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/un-report-indigenous-justice-system-1.7631716

Protecting Lands, Protecting Rights: Parks Canada Faces $450M in Cuts

According to 2025 reports, Parks Canada is bracing for approximately $450 million in cuts and lapsed funding over the next two years.This reduction threatens not just jobs and services, but also long‑term commitments to heritage sites, conservation, and Indigenous co‑management of lands.

What’s Being Cut

Over 800 full‑time positions may be eliminated as part of the funding reductions.
Cuts are slated across multiple areas: heritage site management, visitor services, and standard operating supports.
Long‑standing programs and funds — including heritage and conservation investments, infrastructure upkeep, and Indigenous‑led stewardship funding — are at risk, especially once temporary or “sunset” funds expire.

Why This Matters

The role of Parks Canada isn’t just environmental or recreational — it’s deeply tied to cultural heritage, land stewardship, and Indigenous rights. Over recent years, Parks Canada has expanded cooperation with Indigenous communities to:

Co‑manage heritage places, national parks, and conservation areas.
Support Indigenous stewardship and guardian programs that help protect ecosystems, waterways, and culturally significant lands.
Facilitate Indigenous access to traditional lands, cultural heritage, and historical governance practices through cooperative management agreements.

These efforts are part of a broader commitment to reconciliation, recognition of Indigenous sovereignty over traditional territories, and honouring of Indigenous legal and cultural frameworks.

Cutting funding to Parks Canada threatens to unravel those commitments — jeopardizing the capacity to maintain lands, heritage sites, and important co‑management structures. It places Indigenous stewardship, environmental protection, and cultural heritage at risk.

What the Cuts Signal — and What’s at Stake

Loss of stewardship capacity: With fewer staff and smaller budgets, maintenance of heritage sites, ecologically sensitive lands, and national parks may be scaled back or suspended — which can affect ecosystems, traditional lands, and Indigenous access.
Threat to Indigenous‑led conservation: Guardian programs, heritage‑site partnerships, and Indigenous co‑management rely on ongoing funding. Cuts could stall or end progress toward Indigenous-led stewardship goals.
Uncertainty for heritage preservation: Historic sites — including places of cultural importance for Indigenous peoples — may face neglect, reduced maintenance, or closure.
Impact beyond environment: Reduced park services and heritage conservation can affect tourism, local economies, community well‑being, and future opportunities for Indigenous governance or land‑management initiatives.

Our Perspective: Why Support and Protection Matter

As advocates for justice, equity, and Indigenous rights, we believe protecting public lands, heritage sites, and Indigenous stewardship isn’t optional — it’s essential. Policies, funding, and programs should reflect respect for Indigenous jurisdictions, uphold treaty and treaty‑land responsibilities, and support long‑term sustainability.

Cuts to Parks Canada funding aren’t merely budgetary line‑items — they test Canada’s commitment to reconciliation, environmental protection, and respect for Indigenous sovereignty.

What You Can Do (and Watch)

Stay informed about shifts in federal funding and their impact on heritage, conservation, and Indigenous stewardship.
Support Indigenous‑led conservation, stewardship, and cultural heritage initiatives.
Amplify calls for stable, long-term funding for protected lands — including national parks and heritage sites — to safeguard ecosystems, culture, and Indigenous rights.
Push for accountability in government commitments — especially when stewardship and reconciliation are involved.

Source: https://www.indigenouswatchdog.org/update/parks-canada-braces-for-450-million-in-cuts-and-lapsed-funding/

Inuit Leaders Urge Canada to Invest in Inuit-Led Projects

Leaders from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) and Inuit community partners are calling on the federal government to prioritize and invest in a series of Inuit‑led infrastructure and development projects — describing them as vital both for Inuit wellbeing and for Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.

What’s Being Proposed

NTI, in cooperation with territorial partners, has outlined four “shovel‑ready” projects that are being presented as foundational to both community strength and Arctic resilience:

Qikiqtarjuaq Deep‑Sea Port — a deep‑sea port designed to reduce annual sealift costs, enable Nunavut’s fisheries to operate locally (rather than exporting to Greenland), and provide a crucial refuelling and logistical point for the Canadian Coast Guard along the Northwest Passage.
Iqaluit Nukkiksautiit Hydroelectric Project — a hydroelectric project to replace diesel‑based power generation in the territory’s capital, improving energy security and affordability while enabling sustainable infrastructure for emergency services, telehealth, and distance learning.
Kivalliq Hydro‑Fibre Link — a combined power and fibre‑optic corridor to connect Nunavut physically to southern Canada, delivering renewable energy along with broadband connectivity. This would support tele‑health, education, economic development, and help reduce the isolation many communities face.
Grays Bay Road and Port Corridor — a road and port infrastructure corridor that would open access to critical mineral deposits — vital for Canada’s clean energy transition — and offer another refuelling/resupply point along the Northwest Passage.

Each of these projects is Inuit‑led, rooted in community planning, and designed to deliver long‑term benefits: improved employment and economic opportunities, sustainable energy, more reliable infrastructure, stronger local fisheries, and a foundation for future growth and resilience.

Why This Matters — For Communities and the Country

Community‑driven self‑determination: These projects are centered on Inuit priorities and led by Inuit organizations — an approach grounded in self-governance and respect for local knowledge and culture. Investing in these projects means recognizing Indigenous jurisdiction over land, resources, and decision-making in Inuit territory.
Sustainable infrastructure & economic security: Projects like hydroelectric power and fiber‑optic links can stabilize energy and communication costs, improve access to health and education services (especially remote/online), and decrease dependency on diesel and costly imports.
Arctic sovereignty & strategic infrastructure: For Canada, supporting Inuit‑led development in the North strengthens national sovereignty, ensures critical Arctic supply routes, and bolsters presence and capacity in a region increasingly important geopolitically.
Long-term viability and resilience: By planning for sustainable clean energy, reliable infrastructure, and community-led governance, these projects pave the way for healthier communities, economic opportunity, and a future where Inuit-led innovation drives resilience.

The Ask: What Inuit Leaders Are Calling For

NTI and partners are urging the Government of Canada to:

Formalize partnerships and commit federal infrastructure funding through relevant national plans.
Center Inuit ownership, long-term revenue generation, and community-led governance in every project.
Include paid apprenticeships and hiring targets that benefit Inuit youth and workers under Article 23‑style agreements.
Fund full life-cycle operations and maintenance — not just initial construction — to ensure infrastructure remains functional and sustainable for decades.

As NTI Vice-President summed it up: “There is no Canadian sovereignty without Inuit security.”

What This Means for the Path Ahead

For Inuit communities, these projects represent more than infrastructure — they represent dignity, self-determination, sustainable livelihoods, and a future where Inuit leadership shapes their destiny. For Canada as a whole, supporting these projects can redefine what nation‑building looks like: inclusive of Indigenous voices, guided by local expertise, and rooted in respect for land, people, and sovereignty.

But commitments must be real — including long-term funding, Indigenous leadership, and meaningful respect for Inuit priorities. When infrastructure is built by Inuit, for Inuit, the benefits ripple out: strong communities, improved well‑being, and a model for sustainable development across the North.

Source: https://www.indigenouswatchdog.org/update/nunavut-inuit-urge-canada-to-invest-in-inuit-led-projects-of-national-interest/

Short-Term Funding, Long-Term Consequences

Indigenous leaders across Canada are raising concerns after the 2025 federal budget left key reconciliation programs without guaranteed funding beyond spring 2026, prompting fears that these programs could be terminated or face massive cuts.

What’s in the Budget — And What’s Missing

Base funding for Indigenous health, social services, and treaty-related work is largely frozen, leaving communities uncertain about long-term support.
Many programs supporting reconciliation, youth, education, and cultural initiatives are only funded through spring 2026, meaning there is no guaranteed funding after that date.
Some short-term increases were included, such as funding for safe drinking water and project consultations, but these are limited to the next fiscal year and do not provide long-term stability.

What Indigenous Leaders Are Saying

Voices from across communities and national Indigenous organizations paint a bleak picture:

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak called the budget “a missed opportunity” and emphasized that youth and community programs risk disruption after spring 2026.
Leaders note that without secure, long-term funding, systemic inequities in education, health, and culturally appropriate services will persist.
Inuit and Métis leaders highlighted the lack of detailed funding allocations for different Indigenous groups, creating further uncertainty.

Why This Matters — Beyond the Numbers

This isn’t simply about dollars and cents. Budget decisions like this affect everyday lives — it’s about real-world impact: housing, education, child welfare, mental and physical health, and the vitality of communities.

For many Indigenous families, the lack of long‑term, stable funding undermines trust. Commitments to reconciliation, equity, and justice must come with sustained, concrete action — not temporary fixes or short‑term budgets.

As one prominent Indigenous leader concludes: this budget may signal goodwill, but without generational investment and a recognition of treaty obligations, it misses a chance to truly advance equality, justice, and community wellbeing across Indigenous Nations.

What’s Next — A Call for Accountability

Indigenous organizations and communities will be watching closely — advocating not just for short-term patchwork, but for meaningful, long-term structural investments.
Activists and legal advocates are also calling on the government to develop and implement a Treaty-based fiscal framework that recognizes Indigenous jurisdiction and ensures funding reflects treaty obligations and community needs.
For allies and supporters: sharing information, amplifying Indigenous voices, and pushing for transparency and justice in federal funding decisions remains critical.

While the 2025 federal budget includes some short-term measures, Indigenous leaders warn that without secure funding beyond 2026, meaningful progress toward reconciliation and justice remains at risk.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-leaders-budget-reaction-9.6968458

Rebuilding Indigenous Law: A New Path Forward

In a powerful move toward recognition, self‑determination, and cultural resurgence, the University of Victoria has launched a ground‑breaking initiative to rebuild and revitalize Indigenous legal orders across Canada.

Why This Matters

For generations, Indigenous legal traditions — laws rooted in stories, teachings, and relationships with land and community — were suppressed, ignored, or erased under colonial legal systems. What survives today are fragments, oral histories, and knowledge held by Elders and community members.

But Indigenous law has never disappeared. It’s always been alive in practice, memory, and values. The challenge has been creating space in modern institutions for those laws to be studied, practiced, and restored.

What UVic Is Doing

The new initiative — called Next Steps: Rebuilding Indigenous Law — is funded with $10 million from the Law Foundation of British Columbia, and aims to support Indigenous communities in rebuilding their own legal systems.
The approach centers on collaboration: community research teams co‑lead each step, grounded in local values and traditions, so that legal orders reflect the laws communities have always known.
Parallel to the research initiative, UVic has opened a dedicated space — its new Indigenous Law wing — designed in consultation with Indigenous Nations, with classrooms, gathering spaces, ceremonial areas, and oral‑storytelling areas. This physical space creates a home for Indigenous law education and revitalization.

What Rebuilding Indigenous Law Looks Like

Rebuilding Indigenous law isn’t about transplanting old laws into a new box. It’s about renewing living, adaptive legal systems that continue to evolve — rooted in culture, land, tradition, and community.

For example:

Laws around family, child welfare, land stewardship, conflict resolution, community governance — all governed traditionally through ceremony, oral history, and communal responsibility.
Legal practices that emphasize relationships, responsibility, restoration, and healing rather than punitive, adversarial models.
Systems that reflect community values: care for land, respect for Elders, balance, and collective accountability.

When Indigenous law is revitalized and respected, it opens pathways for self-determination, healing, justice, and governance that come from within communities — not imposed from outside.

What This Means for the Future

For Indigenous communities: Real opportunities to reclaim jurisdiction over laws that matter: child welfare, land, culture, governance, and social issues — on their own terms.
For the wider legal system: A rethinking of law in Canada — recognizing plural legal traditions, supporting coexistence of Indigenous and common law, and acknowledging Indigenous legal authority.
For reconciliation: Concrete steps toward honouring Indigenous sovereignty, rights, and cultural heritage, beyond symbolic gestures.

As one scholar leading the initiative put it: Indigenous legal systems didn’t vanish — they were suppressed. Giving them space to breathe, rebuild, and guide justice again is part of building a more just, respectful, and inclusive future.

A major Charter ruling out of Nunavut — and why it matters.

On November 3, 2025, the Nunavut Court of Justice released a decision that should spark important conversations about policing, Charter rights, and community safety in the North.
R. v. Olooyuk (2025 NUCJ 34) isn’t just a case about impaired driving — it’s a case about how quickly constitutional rights can be eroded when systems aren’t working as they should.

The court ultimately issued one of the strongest remedies available in Canadian law: a full stay of proceedings, effectively ending the prosecution. That remedy is rare. It signals that the Charter breaches in this case were serious, compounding, and incompatible with the integrity of the justice system.

This isn’t just a legal technicality. It’s a reminder of the real-world impacts of policing decisions in northern, remote, and predominantly Indigenous communities.

What Happened That Night

On March 28, 2024, RCMP in Rankin Inlet received a complaint alleging an assault. Officers went to a nearby residence to arrest the man involved but the person who answered the door did not consent to police entering — and without a warrant, the officers were required to leave.

As officers walked away, one of them looked through a window beside the door. He saw several people lying down and believed they were intoxicated.

An hour later, the same officer drove by again and saw a man — later confirmed to be Mr. Olooyuk — walking unsteadily outside the home. The officer saw him head toward a snowmobile, then moments later observed the snowmobile move about fifteen feet before stalling. The officer arrested him for impaired operation of a conveyance.

What followed was a series of decisions that increasingly infringed the accused’s rights.

What the Court Found

1. Unlawful Search

The judge found that the officer’s decision to look through the window after being denied entry amounted to a search — and an unconstitutional one.
A person inside a home, even as a guest, has the right to be free from police viewing or surveillance without proper legal authority.

2. Arbitrary Detention

After removing the window observations from consideration (because they came from an unlawful search), the only basis the officer had for arresting Mr. Olooyuk was that he walked with an uneven gait.
That alone did not meet the threshold for “reasonable grounds.”
The arrest, therefore, was unconstitutional.

3. Denial of the Right to Counsel

Inside the detachment, Mr. Olooyuk clearly stated:
“I want to speak to a lawyer right now.”

Police did not facilitate that call.
The officer explained that moving him to the phone room would be unsafe given his uncooperative behaviour. The judge rejected that explanation.
The right to counsel is not optional — and not delayed for convenience.

4. Cumulative Charter Breaches

The judge emphasized that the combination of violations — the illegal search, the unlawful arrest, and the denial of counsel — amounted to a deeper violation of life, liberty, and security of the person.

Why the Court Ordered a Stay of Proceedings

A stay of proceedings is used only when continuing the prosecution would undermine the integrity of the justice system itself.

The judge concluded that anything less — such as excluding certain evidence — would fail to acknowledge the seriousness of the police misconduct.

Key points from the ruling:

The Charter violations were significant and connected.
The breaches happened at multiple stages: investigation, arrest, detention.
Police made conscious choices that ignored constitutional rights.
The public’s confidence in the justice system required a full stop.

Why This Case Matters Beyond the Courtroom

The decision speaks to larger patterns seen in many northern and remote communities:

Over-policing paired with under-protection.
Barriers in accessing counsel or legal information.
Challenges in ensuring police procedures match Charter standards.

The judge explicitly noted concerns about policing in northern and Indigenous communities — even though not enough evidence was presented to fully analyze systemic issues. But the message was clear: some practices “cannot happen,” and others “must change.”

This case is now part of the public record, and it offers guidance to police, courts, communities, and advocates about what fair and lawful policing must look like.

A Reminder About Rights — and Responsibilities

This decision underscores something essential:
Rights matter most in moments of chaos, conflict, or difficulty.
They matter when someone is intoxicated.
They matter when someone is uncooperative.
They matter when someone is suspected, accused, or charged.
Rights don’t turn off — and the police don’t get to turn them off.

For communities across Nunavut and beyond, this case is a chance to reflect on how justice can better align with fairness, safety, and respect — especially where trust in policing has been strained for generations.

Final Thought

When a court must issue the strongest remedy available because of police actions, it signals more than one person’s case. It signals a need for change.

Source: https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/nucj/doc/2025/2025nucj34/2025nucj34.html

Cowichan Decision: Who Really Owns The Land?

A B.C. court recently ruled in Cowichan Tribes v Canada (2025 BCSC 1490) that the Cowichan Nation legally owns a piece of land in Richmond—even though parts of it had long been sold to others. This decision recognizes the Nation’s historic rights and could reshape property law and the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

What’s Happening

The court found that the Cowichan Nation, who have lived by the Fraser River for centuries, have “Aboriginal title” to their former village site known as Tl’uqtinus on Lulu Island. This means they are the true legal owners, even over some areas that were given away or sold by governments in the past. The Crown (the government) did not properly get consent from the Nation before making those land grants, so those sales are now considered legally invalid—though the government and the Cowichan Nation have 18 months to work out what happens next.

Why It Matters

For the first time, Canadian courts have said Indigenous land rights go above privately granted property rights in an urban, highly developed setting. This means governments can’t just sell or give away Indigenous land and ignore the people who’ve always claimed it. The decision also means that if the government didn’t follow its own rules about Indigenous land in the past, that mistake can be corrected now—even if private parties currently hold the title.

Broader Implications

This ruling is historic. It could affect how land disputes are handled not just in B.C., but in other provinces too. Personal property rights are very important in Canada, but so is the constitutional recognition of Indigenous rights. The court decision has made clear that “ownership” is complicated and sometimes older Indigenous rights can override more recent land deals. Coverage and opinion pieces stress that these issues have been building for more than a century, with repeated government denials of Indigenous title forcing Nations through lengthy and expensive legal battles.

What’s Next

The decision is being appealed, so it may be reviewed by higher courts. For now, the Cowichan Nation and governments must negotiate how Aboriginal title will work alongside existing uses. Other Indigenous Nations may follow suit by bringing their own land cases. This is also a chance for Canadians to have a more open conversation about reconciliation, fairness, and how we live together on land that has been fought over for generations.

This case is a signpost: Canadian law is finally catching up to promises and rights that have been ignored for too long.

Manitoba’s Moose-Hunting Rift: What It Means for Aboriginal Rights & Conservation

A recent report from CBC has highlighted a deep rift in Manitoba over moose hunting — a split that raises urgent questions about wildlife conservation, Aboriginal rights, and the meaning of coexistence and stewardship across treaty lands.

What’s Happening

As part of the 2025 hunting season, a newly established buffer zone around Bloodvein First Nation’s traditional territory restricts licensed non-Indigenous hunters from accessing key hunting areas along Rice River Road, Bloodvein River, and surrounding lands in Game Hunting Areas 17, 17A, and 17B.
The buffer zone aims to respond to serious concerns over declining moose populations and to uphold the community’s calls for sustainable harvest practices, respectful access, and protection of traditional lands.
The decision has sparked backlash from organizations like Manitoba Wildlife Federation (MWF), which argue that restricting access undermines provincial wildlife management and denies licensed hunters legal access to Crown lands.
The conflict underscores a larger tension: balancing conservation science, recreational hunting interests, and the constitutionally protected hunting rights of First Nations.

Why It Matters: Aboriginal Rights, Law, and Conservation

This isn’t just about moose — it’s about sovereignty, treaty rights, and recognition of Aboriginal authority over traditional lands and wildlife. As some commentators have noted, the “right to hunt for sustenance” is one of the few Aboriginal rights that has been “pretty settled” in Canadian law.

For Indigenous communities, decisions around hunting are about more than recreation: they are central to food security, culture, identity, and intergenerational connection to the land. The buffer zone and restrictions reflect a push for responsible, sustainable harvest — one rooted in respect for the land and Indigenous stewardship.

From a legal standpoint, this situation calls on Aboriginal-rights lawyers and legal advocates to scrutinize how wildlife laws, treaty obligations, and provincial regulations intersect — especially in times of ecological stress and social change.

Broader Implications: Trust, Reconciliation, and Mutual Respect

Environmental stewardship and sustainability — Wildlife populations like moose in regions such as the Duck Mountain and Porcupine Forest have already experienced steep declines, prompting conservation closures and calls for stricter harvest regulations.
Shared governance and co-management — This conflict shows how shared decision-making — between Indigenous communities, provincial authorities, and other stakeholders — is increasingly essential to sustainable wildlife management.
Cultural recognition and treaty rights — Nations exercising treaty- and Aboriginal-harvest rights highlight the need for legal clarity, respect, and support for legal representation when defending those rights.
Building trust and long-term solutions — For reconciliation to be more than symbolic, such disputes must be addressed through dialogue, law, science, and community collaboration — not unilateral policy changes or antagonistic rhetoric.

What’s Next: Navigating a Path Forward

As moose season continues in Manitoba, and as hunting regulations evolve, the province faces critical decisions: will it honor Aboriginal stewardship and treaty rights — or risk deepening division between communities?

For Aboriginal legal advocates, conservation groups, and community stakeholders, the challenge is to ensure moose and other wildlife populations recover, while respecting the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples who depend on the land.

In this moment of tension — and potential — lies an opportunity: to build a more just, sustainable, and respectful approach to wildlife management, grounded in Indigenous law, community voice, and environmental responsibility.

Source:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-moose-hunting-rift-9.6933389

Understanding Your Rights: What R. v. Mann Teaches Us About Police Detentions and Pat-Down Searches

Knowledge is empowerment: especially when it comes to understanding your rights during interactions with police. One case that continues to shape the limits of police powers in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2004 decision R. v. Mann.

Although the case is now over 20 years old, it remains one of the most important rulings on investigative detentions and pat-down searches. It offers important guidance for anyone, particularly Indigenous, Northern, and marginalized community members, who may face police stops and searches.

This decision reaffirms a core message:
Police powers have limits, and your Charter rights do not disappear during a detention.

What Happened in R. v. Mann

Police in Winnipeg were responding to a break-and-enter call when they saw a man who matched the suspect description. Officers detained him and conducted a pat-down search meant to check for weapons.

During the pat-down, the officer felt a soft object in Mann’s pocket. Instead of stopping or asking questions, the officer reached into the pocket and retrieved a bag of marijuana, later finding more substances.

Mann was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

But the real issue became this: Did the police go too far?

The Supreme Court’s Answer: Yes.

The Supreme Court agreed that the police were justified in detaining Mann and performing a basic pat-down for safety. But the moment the officer reached into the pocket, the purpose of the search changed.

It was no longer about safety. It became a search for evidence… something officers are not allowed to do during an investigative detention.

This pocket search violated Mann’s section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Because the breach was serious, the Court excluded the evidence entirely, and Mann’s acquittal was restored.

What This Means for You: Your Rights in a Police Detention

The Supreme Court’s decision sets out clear boundaries that still apply today:

Police can only detain you if they have “reasonable grounds to suspect".

A hunch is not enough. There must be a connection between you and a specific crime.
- A protective search must stay within strict limits.
- Officers may do a pat-down to check for weapons if they reasonably believe safety is at risk.
Police can only go in your pockets during a detention if they reasonably believe it to be necessary for safety - searching for evidence is not allowed.
- Unless you are under arrest, seaching inside pockets, bags, jackets, or clothing is not allowed.
Privacy matters, even during police contact.
- Your pockets and personal belongings carry a high expectation of privacy. The Court recognized that.
Evidence found through an unlawful search can be thrown out.
- If police overstep their authority, the courts can exclude improperly obtained evidence.

Why This Decision Still Matters: Especially for Indigenous and Northern Communities

At Perrie Law, cases like R. v. Mann speak directly to the realities many of our clients face:

Frequent and intrusive police contact
Unequal treatment during stops
Confusion about what police can legally do
Fear of pushing back against authority

This case reinforces that police powers are not unlimited, and that the courts have a responsibility to check those powers when they infringe on the rights of the public, particularly those who have historically been over-policed.

Understanding the limits of police authority is an essential part of building safer, stronger communities.

Whether you’re navigating police contact, advocating for your rights, or withstanding pressure within an unequal system, you deserve fairness, clarity, and dignity.

Empowerment begins with understanding.

Nunavut Court of Appeal Weighs Constitutional Rights of Inuit Hunters

The Nunavut Court of Appeal recently addressed an important legal question: Should mandatory driving prohibitions apply to Inuit sustenance hunters in Nunavut, even when such bans threaten their right to hunt and support their communities? This question comes from the case "R v Qiyuk, 2025 NUCA 11," where three Inuit applicants faced a one-year driving ban after pleading guilty to impaired driving offences.

The Heart of the Case

The applicants argued that the driving ban would prevent them from hunting, which is essential for the survival of their families and communities. They claimed that the law, as applied, breaches several constitutional protections, including their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Although the Crown conceded that the ban constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" for these hunters, the lower court judge disagreed and upheld the mandatory driving prohibition. The applicants then appealed, raising several legal issues such as misapprehension of facts, liberty interests, treatment or punishment, and potential discrimination against Inuit sustenance hunters.

Questions of National Importance

Justice Tamara Friesen’s decision found that the appeal involved serious questions of law, specifically about how mandatory driving prohibitions interact with the Charter when they affect Indigenous rights to hunt for food and cultural purposes. The Court acknowledged that the outcome of this case could set precedent not only in Nunavut but across Canada.

The application for permission to appeal was granted. Furthermore, the Court allowed the applicants to stay their driving bans pending the appeal's outcome, citing no prior convictions and no opposition from the Crown.

What Comes Next?

This appeal is critical for Inuit communities reliant on hunting for sustenance. It addresses the intersection of public safety laws, constitutional rights, and Indigenous practices. The Nunavut Court of Appeal’s upcoming review may influence how similar cases are decided in the future, balancing government regulations with the very real needs of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Final Thoughts

The "R v Qiyuk" decision demonstrates how legal issues in remote and northern communities often raise unique questions about fairness, culture, and constitutional protections. This case reminds us that legal rules should not overlook the realities of those most affected by them, especially when they concern fundamental ways of life.

Sources

https://www.canlii.org/

Building the Future: How the Nunavut Agreement Renewal Strengthens Inuit Governance

In March 2025, a major step was taken for Inuit governance in Nunavut: the Government of Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), and the Government of Nunavut signed the renewed Implementation Contract under the Nunavut Agreement. This marks the first renewal of the contract in over ten years since the Agreement was signed in 1993.

What the Contract Does

Commits $1.5 billion over 10 years (2024-2034), with an additional $77.6 million per year ongoing.
More than $600 million of the funds are earmarked for Inuit employment and training.
$50 million is set aside for the Nunavut Inuit Heritage Centre.
Funding also supports governance, environmental, and land-use institutions: NTI, Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Planning Commission, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Nunavut Water Board, Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and Hunters & Trappers Organizations.

Why It Matters

This renewed agreement is not just about money—it’s about honoring treaty obligations, strengthening Inuit decision-making, and building capacity in communities. Key points:

Stable long-term funding means communities and Inuit organizations can plan ahead with more certainty.
Employment & training focus opens paths for Inuit people to take on leadership roles, work in government positions, and have a stronger role in governing their lands.
The Heritage Centre helps protect culture, language, history—elements essential to identity and self-determination.
Supporting governance institutions ensures Inuit perspectives are part of decisions about land, the environment, wildlife, and resource management.

Connection to Perrie Law

At Perrie Law, we are deeply committed to supporting Indigenous governance, defending rights, and ensuring access to justice. This renewed Implementation Contract directly aligns with our work:

We help clients navigate the overlapping systems—treaty, land claims, traditional governance—and ensure legal protection of rights promised under the Nunavut Agreement.
As more decision-making power shifts to Inuit bodies and more resources become available locally, people will need support to make sure programs and funding live up to their promises.
We also strive to ensure that people are included—Elders, youth, remote communities—so that the community-led vision of self-determination becomes real.

Looking Forward

The renewal of the Implementation Contract is a milestone. It offers hope—but also responsibility. Communities, organizations, and individuals must stay engaged, watch how the funding flows, ask questions, and make sure Inuit voices remain central in the path forward.

Perrie Law stands ready to walk alongside you through these changes—ensuring that rights are defended, voices are heard, and governance reflects Inuit priorities and knowledge.

Sources: “Historic $1.5B deal marks first renewal of Nunavut Agreement since 1993.” Nunatsiaq News, March 2025. Read here

Privacy and Admissibility of Evidence

A new case about privacy and admissibility of evidence in sexual assault cases in Nunavut!

In the recent case of R v NN, 2024 NUCJ 36, the Nunavut Court of Justice tackled some important questions about what kind of evidence can be used in a sexual assault trial.

The case involved text messages, photos, and Snapchat conversations, and whether they could be considered private "records" - or if they could be used to unfairly influence the jury.

These are the Key takeaways from this new decision:

Protecting privacy: The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the complainant's privacy and preventing the use of evidence that could perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
Balancing rights: The Court carefully weighed the defendant's right to a fair trial against the need to protect the complainant's privacy and dignity.
Context matters: Whether a message or photo is considered private depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the information shared.

Police at your door?

It can be unsettling when the police show up at your home. Here's what you need to know to protect yourself and understand your rights:

Do NOT open the door automatically. You have the right to remain silent and not let them in.
Ask if they have a warrant. If they say they do, ask to see it through the window or slip it under the door. Make sure it has the correct address and a judge's signature.
If they don't have a warrant, you can say:
- "I do not consent to you entering my home."
- "I do not want to talk to you without a lawyer present."
- "I will not open my door for you."
If they insist on coming in without a warrant, DO NOT physically resist. Step aside but clearly say you do not consent to them coming in.
If you are arrested, stay calm and ask for a lawyer immediately. DO NOT answer any questions or give the police any information.

Important notes:

Be polite and cooperative, but firm in telling them your rights.
Do not answer any questions or engage in conversation without a lawyer.
Contact a lawyer as soon as possible.

Remember: You have the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and the right to refuse entry to your home without a warrant.

Be Gay/Do Crime

The phrase "be gay, do crime" is a popular slogan that celebrates rebellion and subversion in queer communities, often as a response to historical and ongoing marginalization. It's a playful, tongue-in-cheek way of embracing non-confirmity and challenging societal norms that have excluded and criminalized 2SLGBTQ+ people. The slogan reflects a sense of empowerment, pride, and resistance against systems that have historically deemed queerness itself as "deviant" and criminal. When being our true, authentic selves is criminalized, it calls to question other pieces of the legal framework imposed on us by the state.

Rather than promoting literal criminal activity, "be gay, do crime" symbolizes resistance to oppression, advocating for self-expression and personal freedom in the face of restrictive conventions.

Law is not often a place queer folks feel safe. With members of the bar scoffing at stating their own pronouns in court and dead names published on public dockets, queer clients deserve representation they can feel safe navigating the system with.

While silly and playful, messaging that resonates with and tells queer clients that they are welcome to be themselves when accessing legal counsel is important. Especially now when trans rights are taking blow after blow across the country. You can feel safe to be yourself while working with anyone at Perrie Law.

Page updated

Report abuse