The new flavour of Canadian pseudolaw is extraordinary rights emerge from "Indigenous law". As in I paid $500 to join the Kinakwii First Nation and now I don't have to pay my mortgage, have motor vehicle insurance, etc.
Rejecting that is more difficult than you'd expect. Why? The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized there is a thing called “Indigenous Law” and it is “braided” (Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5, para 7) with Canadian and international law to do ... something.
How does this work? I haven’t the foggiest, but you can be sure there are plenty of lawyers who are going to get filthy, filthy rich over this legal macramé business. At present the common pseudolaw variant is a fictitious Indigenous population/entity supposedly provides rights and authority under Indigenous Law and that trumps Canadian law in some manner. The usual solution is for courts to say: (1) the supposed Indigenous entity is a fiction, and (2) so is the so-called law. Get lost.
But what happens when fer real Indigenous Law collides with Canadian law? F’ if I know. But a new British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (R v Chief Dsta’hyl, 2026 BCCA 176) provides us with a little insight as to how Canadian courts are going to handle this issue.
Here’s the scenario:
- Chief Dsta’hyl is a hereditary leader of the Wet’suwet’en Nation in British Columbia.
- British Columbia Supreme Court issued an injunction prohibiting people from mucking with a pipeline’s construction.
- Chief Dsta’hyl led a convoy of vehicles that breached the injunction and interfered with construction. He said he is following Indigenous Law that means he and his followers must act.
- Chief Dsta’hyl is found in contempt of court for breaching the court order.
- Chief Dsta’hyl appeals, arguing he had no choice but to act, and what he did was an “excusatory defence”. Indigenous Law!
The British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects the appeal, not because Canadian criminal law trumps Indigenous Law, but on a narrow basis. The issue is Chief Dsta’hyl ignored a court order, which is contempt of court. Indigenous Law doesn’t trump the authority of Canadian court orders. Instead, if you don’t like a court order, you appeal it, which Chief Dsta’hyl did not do.
This is called a “collateral attack’ argument. You are not allowed to challenge the effect of a court decision by a new court proceeding or process. If you don’t like the outcome, you appeal instead. So, the BCCA has said Indigenous Law, in effect, is something that falls inside the umbrella of what Canadian courts do. Which kind of makes sense, if the laws are ‘braided together”.
Except that the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which Canada has signed and implemented) recognizes a “... right to maintain and strengthen their distinct ... legal institutions ...”. Wonder how that’s going to work.
Anyways, the BCCA decision is actually helpful in a pseudolaw context, since what has been happening is people lose in court, suddenly become Indigenous, and claim to be under some other law, probably represented or promoted by Ontario lawyer Glenn Patrick Bogue, aka “Spirit Warrior”. No, I’m not making this up. There is a Canadian lawyer who is running multiple fictitious “Indigenous” nations and tribunals.
The implication of the Chief Dsta’hyl decision is that no matter whether or not you claim to be Indigenous and under Indigenous Law, you still are subject to Canadian court authority. Now, how the legal macramé is going to work is, at this point, anybody’s guess.
There’s probably a maxim of law here. Something like “No Court Will Permit Screwing With Its Authority!” (in Eric Cartman voice). “Nulla Curia Auctoritatem Suam Violare Permittet!” because ... well, you know. Latin is Magic.