Mixed messages : the application of fiduciary principles to the Crown-Native relationship

This paper examines the judiciary's inconsistent application of fiduciary principles to the Crown-Native relationship. With regards to land surrenders it is evident that courts at various levels are willing to interpret the Crown's fiduciary obligations in a manner that is consistent with fiduciary doctrine. This application is contrasted with the courts fiduciary obligation to recognize and protect aboriginal and treaty rights. Regarding these decisions it is clear that the judicial interpretation is more concerned with accommodating aboriginal interests, rather than recognizing these rights in a manner that would be consistent with the principles found in a fiduciary relationship. The reason for this accommodation of aboriginal rights is that the Crown also has an obligation to the interest of the Canadian public good. This inconsistent interpretation of fiduciary principles creates the potential for misrepresented judicial interpretations in future decisions.