<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Publications - Aboriginal</title><description>fmc-law.com RSS Feeds - Publications - Aboriginal</description><link>http://www.fmc-law.com/upload_net/rss/en/Aboriginal.xml</link><lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 10:01:03 GMT</lastBuildDate><language>en-us</language><ttl>5</ttl><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/fmc-law/en/aboriginal" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="fmc-law/en/aboriginal" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item><title>"Aboriginal Construction and Project Development", May 2012</title><description>In Canada, most major resource projects undertaken to develop natural resources occur on public lands (also referred to as Crown lands) administered by federal, provincial or territorial governments, depending on their location.  In respect of most, if not all, of these Crown lands, there is potential for the existence of aboriginal rights in respect of the lands or at least claims to such rights.  Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that “existing aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby affirmed”.  Prepared for the inSight 9th Annual Western Canada Aboriginal Law Forum - Vancouver  Read more by clicking the download button.</description><link>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Aboriginal_Consultation_and_Project_Development.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Aboriginal_Consultation_and_Project_Development.aspx</guid></item><item><title>"Ontario Court Halts Exploration After Mining Company Refused to Consult First Nation", Focus on Environmental Law, January 2012</title><description>The Wahgoshig First Nation (“WFN”) in Northern Ontario has obtained an injunction to temporarily stop Solid Gold Resources Corp. (“Solid Gold”), a junior mining company, from drilling on their First Nation Treaty lands.  In a decision released last week (2011 ONSC 7708 (CanLII)), Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court halted all exploration activities for at least 120 days after finding that Solid Gold had repeatedly failed to respond to consultation requests from both WFN and the Ontario Government.   While this decision should not come as a surprise to knowledgeable observers, it is important for three reasons:   1) It confirms that as yet there is no Aboriginal veto over mining exploration activities;2) It highlights problems with the Crown’s practice of delegating the consultation to proponents and 3) It reiterates that the “free entry” mining system in Ontario is limited by Aboriginal consultation.   Companies that are not mindful of Aboriginal concerns will see their business plans delayed or cancelled.   Read more by clicking the download button.</description><link>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Focus_on_Environmental_Law.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Focus_on_Environmental_Law.aspx</guid></item><item><title>Ontario Court Halts Exploration After Mining Company Refused to Consult First Nation</title><description>The Wahgoshig First Nation (“WFN”) in Northern Ontario has obtained an injunction to temporarily stop Solid Gold Resources Corp. (“Solid Gold”), a junior mining company, from drilling on their First Nation Treaty lands.  In a decision released last week (2011 ONSC 7708 (CanLII)), Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court halted all exploration activities for at least 120 days after finding that Solid Gold had repeatedly failed to respond to consultation requests from both WFN and the Ontario Government.   Read more by clicking the download button.</description><link>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Sahni_Nalin_Hunter_David_Wahgoshig_First_Nation.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Sahni_Nalin_Hunter_David_Wahgoshig_First_Nation.aspx</guid></item><item><title>Keewatin Raises Questions Over Infringment of Treaty Rights</title><description>After years of litigation, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently determined several issues as a basis for further steps in a civil action brought by Grassy Narrows First Nation (Grassy Narrows) against the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and Abititi-Consolidated Inc.; the federal government is a third party in the action.   The genesis of the case is 1873, when the government of Canada and various First Nations signed Treaty 3, which covers a broad expanse of northwestern Ontario and eastern Manitoba.  The decision, Keewatin v.Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), [2011] O.J. No. 3907) was a clear victory for Grassy Narrows. Three issues have especially broad implications.  1) Does the province have a right to "take up" lands?  2) Can the province "infringe" treaty rights?  3) How important is historical context?   To read the full article, please click the download button.</description><link>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1011_Bigue_Ann_Braul_Wally_Treaty_Rights.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1011_Bigue_Ann_Braul_Wally_Treaty_Rights.aspx</guid></item></channel></rss>

