Abuse of Process and Indigenous proceedings: Supreme Court Victory for the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan

Revisiting the ruling Saskatchewan (Environment) c. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 CSC 4

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant ruling in Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4. This unanimous ruling represents a significant milestone in the legal dispute between the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan (MNS) and the province, by rejecting Saskatchewan’s claim of the abuse of process, thus confirming MNS’s right to continue its legal proceedings regarding the province’s failure to consult during the uranium exploration permit process.

MNS and Saskatchewan: a long-standing dispute

The legal battle between MNS and Saskatchewan has been ongoing for over 20 years:

• 1994: MNS instituted legal proceedings to have ancestral title and rights recognized in the northwest of the province, but the proceedings were suspended in 2005 for lack of document disclosure.
• 2020: new legal proceedings were instituted to have it declared that Saskatchewan has an obligation to consult MNS on these same claims. A ruling on the summary judgment motion is still pending.
• 2021: after uranium exploration permits were issued on land claimed by the Métis Nation, MNS filed a judicial review application challenging the absence of consultation in the permitting process. Saskatchewan attempted to strike out parts of this application on the grounds of abuse of process, arguing that the prior legal proceedings made this new one redundant and unnecessary.

Does MSN’s maintain of its 2021 application constitute an abuse of process given the previous legal proceedings¹?

No. The court dismissed the abuse of process argument and ruled that even when multiple legal proceedings address similar issues, this does not constitute abuse of process as long as it does not threaten the integrity of the judicial system².

Allowing MNS to assert a failure to consult in its 2021 application, despite the suspension of the 1994 action, does not constitute an abuse of process. Applying the principles from the in Haida³ and Rio Tinto⁴ rulings, the Court reiterates that the duty to consult is applicable until a final decision is made on claims of indigenous titles or rights⁵.

Although the case does not address the merits of the province’s duty to consult, the Court also provides a review of the principles established since Haida⁶.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the overlap between MNS’s legal proceedings was not sufficient to constitute an abuse of process, and that the existence of multiple legal actions in this case did not compromise judicial coherence or efficiency⁷.

The Court acknowledged that the finality of the litigation could be compromised if the 2020 legal proceedings and the 2021 application led to contradictory outcomes regarding Saskatchewan’s duty to consult indigenous peoples on ancestral rights. However, it suggested that case management could prevent this incompatibility, thus making a drastic measure such as striking out proceedings unnecessary⁸.

Finally, the court reiterated that, while  abuse of process is possible in proceedings involving indigenous litigants, the unique context of proceedings to assert ancestral rights must always be considered particularly in assessing whether an abuse of process has occurred⁹.

This ruling clarifies the principles governing abuse of process in indigenous law and reaffirms the duty to consult indigenous peoples before approving projects that could impact their ancestral rights, although the Supreme Court did not address the merits of MNS’s claims nor on the question of whether the provincial government had a duty to consult or failed to fulfill that duty.

Need legal support in indigenous law?

Contact us today..
Our team of indigenous law lawyers will be happy to assist you!

^{1. Saskatchewan (Environnement) c. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 CSC 4, par. 29.}

^{2. Ibid., par. 39-40.}

^{3. 2004 CSC 73.}

^{4. 2010 CSC 43.}

^{5. Saskatchewan (Environnement) c. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 CSC 4, par. 50.}

^{6.  Ibid., par. 50-52.}

^{7. Ibid., par. 58-59.}

^{8. Ibid., par. 60.}

^{9. Ibid., par. 62.}

Authors: Me Laurie-Ann Laveau, Simon Philipzik, Catherine Cloutier