NL Supreme Court: Innu Nation Inc. v. Canada Certification Partially Granted

• The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador partially certified the Innu Nation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) class action on August 26, 2026.
• Up to 2,000 Labrador Innu survivors are represented in the 2024 lawsuit, cited as 2026 NLSC 101.
• Claims for fiduciary duty, Section 35 Aboriginal rights, and the Honour of the Crown doctrine were certified.
• Negligence claims against Canada and language/culture negligence claims against the Province were struck due to core policy immunity, with leave to amend.
• The court found Canada's role was limited to funding and committee participation, not day-to-day operations, insufficient for a private law duty of care.

This ruling offers crucial precedent for lawyers handling Indigenous class actions against the Crown, clarifying the application of core policy immunity to negligence claims and the evolving scope of fiduciary duties and the Honour of the Crown doctrine.

The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has issued a split decision in the Innu Nation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) case, partially certifying a significant class action launched in 2024. This action, identified by the citation 2026 NLSC 101, represents up to 2,000 Labrador Innu survivors seeking redress for their experiences in day schools. Justice Peter N. Browne presided over the August 26, 2026, ruling, which allowed certain claims to proceed while striking others.

Specifically, the court certified claims related to fiduciary duty, Aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution, and the Honour of the Crown doctrine. However, negligence claims against Canada were struck, as were language and culture negligence claims against the Province, though these were dismissed without prejudice and with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings. This partial certification means the Newfoundland Innu class action will advance on several key legal fronts, while others require further refinement.

A central aspect of Justice Browne's decision involved the application of the core policy immunity principle, leading to the dismissal of negligence claims against Canada. The court determined that Canada's involvement in the day schools was limited to funding and participation in educational committees, rather than direct, day-to-day operational control. This limited role was deemed insufficient to establish a private law duty of care, a prerequisite for a successful negligence claim.

In reaching this conclusion, the court drew upon established Supreme Court of Canada precedents, including *Cooper v. Hobart*, 2001 SCC 79, and *Nelson (City) v. Marchi*, 2021 SCC 41. These cases delineate the boundaries of governmental liability, distinguishing between policy decisions, which are generally immune from negligence claims, and operational decisions, which may not be. The same reasoning was applied to strike the Province's language and culture negligence claim, as these were characterized as policy choices concerning curriculum design, language of instruction, and resource allocation, rather than operational acts.

While negligence claims faced dismissal, the court allowed several other critical claims to proceed, underscoring the evolving nature of Indigenous law in Canada. All three forms of fiduciary duty claims Canada were certified, indicating the court's recognition of a potential special relationship between the Crown and the Innu Nation that could give rise to such obligations.

Regarding Section 35 Aboriginal rights, Justice Browne acknowledged that jurisprudence concerning Indigenous language, culture, and governance continues to develop. He explicitly stated that he could not conclude the asserted rights were incapable of recognition under Canadian law, thus allowing these claims to move forward. Furthermore, the Honour of the Crown doctrine claim also survived. The court affirmed that while the Honour of the Crown is not a standalone tort, it is a “flexible and capacious doctrine” from which specific legal obligations can arise, citing *Quebec (Attorney General) v. Pekuamiulnuatsh Takuhikan*, 2024 SCC 39. Consequently, striking this claim without a full evidentiary record was deemed inappropriate by the court.

The Innu Nation Inc. v. Canada certification ruling holds significant implications for future Indigenous class actions against the Crown. By clarifying the application of core policy immunity to negligence claims, the decision provides a roadmap for plaintiffs and defendants alike regarding the scope of governmental liability for policy-level decisions versus operational conduct. This distinction will be crucial in assessing potential claims related to historical injustices.

Moreover, the survival of fiduciary duty claims Canada, Section 35 Aboriginal rights, and the Honour of the Crown doctrine underscores the judiciary's commitment to a nuanced and evolving understanding of the Crown's responsibilities to Indigenous peoples. The court's emphasis on the Honour of the Crown as a source of specific legal obligations, even if not a standalone tort, reinforces its importance in Indigenous litigation. This ruling offers crucial precedent for lawyers handling Indigenous class actions against the Crown, clarifying the application of core policy immunity to negligence claims and the evolving scope of fiduciary duties and the Honour of the Crown doctrine.

This ruling offers crucial precedent for lawyers handling Indigenous class actions against the Crown, clarifying the application of core policy immunity to negligence claims and the evolving scope of fiduciary duties and the Honour of the Crown doctrine.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer