Northwest Métis land claim poised to return to court after two-decade stay

A 32-year-old lawsuit asserting Métis title across a vast northern claim area is poised to return to a Saskatchewan courtroom. It revives a legal test of whether Canada could extinguish collective Métis land rights by issuing scrip to individuals.

Gerald Morin, one of the original plaintiffs and now an adviser to Métis Nation–Saskatchewan (MN–S), told Windspeaker the plaintiffs have applied to lift a stay imposed in 2005. He expects the matter to be before the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan sometime in October.

“I can’t tell you how good it feels,” Morin said.

It became difficult to hold onto hope that the land claim would move forward and that the underlying land issues would be addressed, he said.

“I’m very happy that finally we’re moving ahead with it,” he added.

Lifting the stay would not determine whether Métis title exists. It would allow the Northwest Land Claim to resume after nearly 21 years on hold, potentially leading to a trial or negotiations with Canada and Saskatchewan.

In a July 21 MN–S news release, Minister of Self-Determination and Self-Government Brennan Merasty described the move as the result of sustained community leadership.

“For more than 30 years, this land claim has been held back but today we take action, lifting the stay and moving forward with our claim,” Merasty said in the release.

Filed in 1994 by 34 Métis plaintiffs, MN–S, and the Métis National Council, the action seeks declarations of existing Aboriginal title and rights to land, resources, harvesting and self-government. It also seeks good-faith negotiations or remedies, including land and resource transfers and damages.

MN–S describes the claim as covering about 120,000 square kilometres of northern Saskatchewan and Alberta, including historic communities such as Île-à-la-Crosse, Green Lake and Buffalo Narrows. MN–S says the action concerns Crown land and would not affect private property. Canada and Saskatchewan are the defendants.

The breadth of the claim could also raise questions for First Nations about how its boundaries and any eventual remedies are defined. The 1994 pleading maintains that the asserted Métis rights coexist with First Nations’ Aboriginal and treaty rights and would not affect them. MN–S similarly says it respects First Nations rights, title and jurisdiction, and that the claim does not infringe on those rights.

At its core, the case asks whether issuing scrip to individuals could lawfully eliminate rights held collectively — and whether those rights constrain decisions about Crown land and resources.

Scrip certificates offered individuals either a specified acreage or a dollar amount that could be applied toward the purchase of land. Unlike treaties, scrip was issued to individuals rather than negotiated collectively with Métis communities.

Commissioners travelled through the West alongside treaty-making from the late 1800s into the early 1900s, offering certificates typically worth 160 or 240 acres, or an equivalent dollar amount.

The record of what followed is stark. The Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada says speculators obtained 12,560 of 14,849 money scrip certificates issued. It also says Métis people in northwest Saskatchewan were left with only one per cent of the 138,320 acres covered by land scrip.

In R. v. Blais in 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada called the history of scrip speculation and devaluation “a sorry chapter in our nation’s history.”

The plaintiffs allege commissioners refused collective negotiation, scrip could not be redeemed for land in their unsurveyed homeland, and Canada knew certificates would be sold to speculators below their face value. The allegations have not been proven at trial.

In 1994 statements of defence, Canada and Saskatchewan denied the allegations and argued any rights had been extinguished through legislation, scrip and, in Saskatchewan’s case, treaties. Canada denied that Métis fell within federal jurisdiction under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

That position was overtaken in 2016 when the Supreme Court ruled in Daniels v. Canada that Métis and non-status Indians fall under section 91(24). Daniels did not decide whether Métis title exists or whether scrip extinguished it.

The Northwest Land Claim stalled in 2005 after the plaintiffs did not provide documents required through the court proceedings. MN–S says the required material was completed and disclosed in 2025, clearing the way to seek removal of the stay.

In the July 21 release, MN–S President Glen McCallum pointed to community-led research supporting the case.

“Our communities have developed land use studies, working with our Elders and land users to clearly show our Métis footprint. Lifting the stay would allow this work to move forward,” McCallum said.

Morin acknowledged the long dormancy was not caused solely by document demands. Internal leadership turmoil within the Métis government also diverted attention from the case before subsequent leadership renewed its focus on nation-building and rights.

He said Métis rights advocacy also faced a jurisdictional barrier. When the claim was launched, Ottawa pointed to the provinces, while provincial governments pointed back to federal jurisdiction.

Morin said traditional harvesters had grown tired of feeling they needed to hide from enforcement officers or conceal meat as they returned home.

He described the larger issue as “simply not having access to land — not only for economic development, but for cultural purposes and for spiritual purposes.”

“I mean, we’re a land-based people. We have a strong connection to the land,” Morin said.

The return to court is personal for Morin, who led both MN–S and the Métis National Council when the action began.

“There were times over the years where it was pretty discouraging,” he said.

The stakes are not confined to history. In February 2025, the Supreme Court allowed MN–S to continue a separate challenge involving Saskatchewan’s issuance of three uranium exploration permits to NexGen Energy Ltd. in territory where MN–S asserts title and commercial harvesting rights.

The court did not decide the underlying rights, but ruled the challenge was not an abuse of process merely because the 1994 action and another consultation case already existed.

“Although abuse of process is possible in proceedings involving Indigenous litigants, the unique context of Aboriginal rights litigation must always be borne in mind,” Justice Malcolm Rowe wrote for the unanimous court in its published decision.

In a written statement provided to The Canadian Press following the ruling, Saskatchewan said it respected the decision but emphasized the court had acknowledged its concerns about overlapping litigation.

“While the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, it also recognized Saskatchewan’s concerns about having to argue the same case twice,” the province said in the statement.

In a 2017 interview with Northern Pride, original plaintiff Max Morin, who is not related to Gerald Morin, said: “We’ll continue living here, but everyone seems to be getting everything out of our territory except us.”

Gerald Morin said the plaintiffs initially considered a claim encompassing the entire Métis homeland, but their lawyers warned that producing the necessary evidence and covering the cost of litigation on a national scale would be “difficult, if not impossible.”

The lawyers instead advised selecting an area where the plaintiffs could “put our best foot forward and advance a test case,” he said.

According to Morin, MN–S leadership has also committed to addressing the land aspirations of Métis people throughout Saskatchewan in any eventual negotiations, rather than limiting discussions to communities within the current claim area.

He believes a higher-court finding that scrip did not extinguish title could pressure Canada and the western provinces to negotiate with other Métis governments. It would not automatically resolve other claims but could establish an influential legal principle.

Morin framed the claim as part of a broader rights agenda involving self-government, land and harvesting.

In a statement published on MN–S’s Northwest Land Claim webpage, Morin connected the current action to the historic Métis struggles at Red River and Batoche.

“Our people fought twice—in Red River, and Batoche—for our land rights, our rights to preserve our culture, our Michif languages, and our way of life. This will ensure the prosperity and survival of our people.”

Before those wider implications can be tested, the plaintiffs must persuade a judge to restart the action. If the stay is lifted, Morin expects years of preparation and possible appeals.

“We’ve been waiting a long time. A lot of sacrifices have been made. Our people are very hopeful,” he said.