The Osgoode Certificate in Consultation (and Beyond) with Indigenous Peoples
CONTENT SCOPE
- Review of how the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action can and should impact/improve regulatory and adjudicative processes.
- Review of how the provisions of UNDRIP can and should impact/improve regulatory and adjudicative processes.
- Distinctions of regulatory authority and duty with Treaty and non-treaty Peoples.
- Unique aspects arising from modern land claims.
- Regulator’s Duty to assess the adequacy of consultation
- Regulator’s role in respect of “Free Prior and Informed Consent” and/or other aspects of UNDRIP (per recent case law Federally and in BC)
- Who has the ability/right to bring an issue forward to a regulatory process? What is the current law and precedent? Citing examples and cases
- Highlight relevant cases such as the recent Łútsël K’é lawsuit against KPMG in NWT and the Alberta Court of Appeal decision re: AltaLink and AUC and what these mean for regulators.
- Explore precedent setting decisions, for example that set by Justice Devlin: Why "complicated disputes" involving Indigenous communities and public-facing firms often belong in open court, and when is confidentiality in a hearing truly necessary vs. when it hinders public accountability?
- How regulators should consider reconciliation in rate applications
- How regulators should consider infrastructure development, including potential long-term, positive ratepayer impacts such as reduced maintenance costs and environmental benefits arising from partnerships with First Nations.
- Assessing adequacy of consultation
- Who is allowed to bring FN issues: non-FN, hereditary Chiefs, elected chiefs.
Go to course →
Opens in a new tab
