Saskatchewan v. Métis Nation, 2025 SCC 4
How many related lawsuits can you start without abusing the court’s process? It depends on the level of similarity. According to the SCC, multiple doesn’t necessarily mean bad.
A bit of context: The Saskatchewan branch of the Métis Nation has been fighting with the province about land for over 20 years. They sued in 1994, claiming Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights. But the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench stayed the lawsuit in 2005 because the Métis Nation failed to disclose documents.
Saskatchewan figured that was the end of it. The government even adopted a formal (non) consultation policy — saying it didn’t recognize any Indigenous claims in Saskatchewan and wouldn’t consult with Indigenous groups about land use issues.
The Métis Nation — not exactly fond of the province’s approach — started two related legal proceedings several years later.
- The first claims the government’s no-consultation policy is unconstitutional because the Métis Nation’s land claims require consultation
- The second aims to set aside uranium exploration permits that the province granted without consultation.
On appeal: Saskatchewan argued the newer proceedings are an abuse of process because they’re based on the same land claim as the original lawsuit.
The Court’s decision: With Justice Rowe writing for the majority, the Court said related proceedings are sometimes — but not always — an abuse of process. Similarity alone isn’t enough.
[T]he abuse of process analysis does not end when multiple or similar proceedings exist. [T]he analysis needs to focus on whether allowing the litigation to proceed would violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice…. Where, for example, having duplicative proceedings would waste the resources of the parties, courts and witnesses, or risk inconsistent results and therefore undermine the credibility of the judicial process, this can amount to an abuse of process.
Para 40
It’s abusive to sue the exact same defendant and ask for the exact same remedy. But that wasn’t the case here.
- The gist of the original lawsuit was: “The government of Saskatchewan needs to recognize our land and harvesting rights”.
- The newer proceedings are more like: “I know we haven’t proven our claim yet, but you at least need to consult with us before mining land we say is ours.”
And that difference was enough to get the Metis Nation’s newer proceedings past the abuse of process argument.
Saskatchewan also argued the two newer proceedings duplicate each other — since they both allege Saskatchewan had a duty to consult. But again the Court saw a difference.
- In one, the Metis Nation wants to strike down the government’s non-consultation policy.
- In the other, they want to set aside two specific permits.
There’s overlap, but not enough to warrant stopping either claim in its tracks.
Para 60
Striking pleadings for abuse of process is a drastic remedy… The option of case management to avoid a potential inconsistency of decisions makes clear that this is not a case where such a “drastic remedy” is to be contemplated.
Uniquely positioned: The Court’s reasons don’t give the impression this case was a tough call. But if it had been more of a grey area, the Indigenous context may have tipped the scales. Even though Indigenous litigants don’t get a free pass — Justice Rowe made it clear that the Indigenous context requires a unique (and more flexible) approach to the test for abuse of process.
[T]he 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, [in choosing an appropriate response]. Court procedures should facilitate, not impede, the just resolution of Aboriginal claims.
Para 62
Big picture: Even though the claim survived the abuse of process argument — that doesn’t mean the prior litigation conduct won’t be relevant. A different court still needs to decide whether Saskatchewan owed the Metis any consultation. And that court may well decide that the Metis Nation’s refusal to disclose documents signalled to the province that no consultation was required.
[The scope of the duty to consult] is not before this Court.
test