The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 clarifies that Aboriginal peoples are free to challenge specific Crown decisions impacting their asserted rights on the basis of failed Crown consultation, even if a broader court action looking to substantively establish the rights at issue remains unresolved, or even in a procedurally dormant state. In turn, the Crown cannot avoid consultation regarding asserted title or rights simply because no final judicial decision on those title or rights has been rendered.

The procedural guidance provided in this decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s existing jurisprudence, which holds that the duty to consult is a mechanism intended to operate in the time frame between the assertion and final determination of claims. A substantive claim relating to the specific asserted rights at issue therefore need not be brought, let alone successfully concluded, before Crown consultation is required regarding those rights.

Although multiple proceedings on the same or similar issues can amount to an abuse of process if they have the effect of wasting resources or giving rise to inconsistent results, the fact that parallel cases may involve similar parties or raise similar issues does not automatically amount to abuse of the court’s process. The critical question is whether continuing the litigation undermines principles of judicial economy, consistency, and finality, or the integrity of the justice system; or conversely, whether multiple proceedings might serve a valid purpose that may in fact support the integrity of the judicial system.

In this case, the Supreme Court added a caution: while the doctrine of abuse of process does apply to Aboriginal claims, it must be applied in a manner that has regard to the unique context of those claims and encourages a just resolution.

Background

For more than three decades, the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan (MNS) and the Government of Saskatchewan have been involved in a series of legal proceedings centered on MNS’s assertion of Aboriginal title and rights, including commercial harvesting rights, in parts of northern Saskatchewan. These legal disputes encompass distinct actions:

  1. 1994 Action – MNS filed a civil claim seeking declarations of Aboriginal title and rights over certain lands in northern Saskatchewan (this action was stayed due to document disclosure issues).
  2. 2020 Action – MNS filed a challenge to Saskatchewan’s 2010 Consultation Policy Framework, which rejects claims of Aboriginal title or commercial harvesting rights as being capable of triggering the Crown’s duty to consult Aboriginal peoples.
  3. 2021 Application – MNS sought judicial review of Saskatchewan’s specific decision to grant uranium exploration permits to NexGen Energy Ltd. (NexGen) without first consulting with MNS regarding potential impacts to their asserted Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights.

In the 2021 Application, Saskatchewan moved to strike certain paragraphs of that claim on the basis that MNS was raising issues that were duplicative of ones raised in the 1994 and 2020 Actions, and therefore constituted an abuse of process. This motion eventually led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Judicial history

a) Court of Queen’s Bench (chambers judge)

The chambers judge agreed with Saskatchewan that in the 2021 Application, MNS was re-asserting issues regarding Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights from the two earlier proceedings in an impermissibly duplicative manner. Holding that this duplication amounted to an abuse of process, the judge struck the duplicative paragraphs from the 2021 Application.

b) Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan

The Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge’s ruling. It emphasized that, although the three proceedings (1994, 2020 and 2021) all raised aspects of MNS’s asserted Aboriginal title and rights, they differed in their focus and remedies sought, as follows:

  • The 1994 Action seeks substantive declarations of Aboriginal title and rights.
  • The 2020 Action challenges the validity and constitutionality of Saskatchewan’s 2010 consultation policy framework more generally, focusing on the issue of whether in Saskatchewan the Crown’s duty to consult properly extends to assertions of Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights.
  • The 2021 Application specifically addresses whether Saskatchewan breached its duty to consult MNS when issuing NexGen’s exploration permits regarding the potential impacts on asserted Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights.

The Court of Appeal concluded there was no abuse of process, since each matter advanced distinct legal issues and sought distinct remedies, even though the underlying subject-matter could be “superficially” said to relate to the same overlapping issue – MNS’s claim of Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights. As such, there was no risk of offending the doctrine of abuse of process, such as giving rise to potentially inconsistent outcomes. The Court of Appeal therefore ordered the paragraphs struck by the chambers judge reinstated.

Supreme Court’s decision

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Saskatchewan’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

In doing so, the Court confirmed that although all three proceedings initiated by MNS share certain similarities in underlying issues (i.e. assertions of Aboriginal title, commercial harvesting rights and allegations of a breach of the Crown’s duty to consult regarding these issues), they are not identical in their scope, purpose or remedies. The Court confirmed that the mere existence of multiple proceedings with some similarities or overlap is not enough, in and of itself, to constitute an abuse of process. The Court agreed that it was permissible for MNS to pursue a specific interim remedy for failed consultation regarding its asserted Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights, while its substantive claim to those rights remained undetermined in another legal proceeding.

The Court further commented that the fact that the 1994 Action was stayed did not prevent MNS from raising those claims for the purpose of insisting on Crown consultation. The Court distinguished between the procedural status of a substantive claim, from the Crown having knowledge of the underlying asserted substantive right, commenting that “the status of the 1994 Action is not dispositive of whether Saskatchewan was put on proper notice of MNS’s asserted claim. The 1994 Action is not, in and of itself, MNS’s asserted claim. Rather, it is the legal vehicle which MNS selected in order to vindicate its claim.”

In maintaining consistency with the existing case law on motions to strike and abuse of process, the Court stressed that potential concerns relating to duplication, such as inconsistent results or wasted resources, can be addressed by mechanisms like judicial case management, rather than resorting to the “drastic remedy” of striking pleadings, which should only be done in the “clearest of cases” when the abuse “falls at the high end of the spectrum.”

Accordingly, the Court held that MNS could proceed with its 2021 Application unaltered, and Saskatchewan’s motion to strike was dismissed.

The Court concluded its decision by emphasizing that, while abuse of process can apply to proceedings involving Aboriginal litigants, “the unique context of litigation to vindicate Aboriginal rights must always be borne in mind, both as to whether an abuse of process exists and, if so, what follows from that.” As such, “court procedures should facilitate, not impede, the just resolution of Aboriginal claims.”

This decision provides some procedural clarity to the Crown and Aboriginal litigants, especially where an Aboriginal litigant may be advancing, or may have already advanced, one or more court claims seeking to prove their substantive claims to Aboriginal title and rights, while also seeking to rely on the requirement on the part of the Crown to consult and accommodate in the interim regarding those same underlying claims.