Skip to content

Did your grandmother lose Indian status by marrying a non-Indian? 

 

A class action has been authorized against the Attorney General of Canada. You are eligible if:

  • Your grandmother lost her Indian status by marrying a non-Indian and recovered her Indian status under paragraph 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act following the 1985 amendments; and,
  • Your only Indian parent is eligible to Indian status under paragraph 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act as amended in 2010, and,
  • You are eligible for Indian status under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act.

Individuals with "Indian Status" are considered to be wards of the Canadian federal government. It has not historically applied to the Metis or Inuit peoples. "Indian Status" is the legal identity of Indigenous persons in Canada. It is considered to be a form of apartheid law by the Assembly of First Nations. Yet losing this status legally severs Indigenous individuals from their own communities.

This has severed many individuals from tribal revenues, such as the oil and gas reserve revenues generated at Pigeon Lake for the Samson Cree. Losing status also deprives certain individuals of certain protections they are otherwise eligible for under the law, such as residing in Nation-owned housing or receiving Nation services.

The financial consequences of losing status can trickle down through the generations, which is why the grandchildren of those who lost status through marriage are now able to take part in this class action suit.

 

What is the status of the case? 

The lawsuit has been "authorized" to proceed as a class action. The Court has yet to rule on liability issues associated with the case.

 

If you are a putative member of the Class, your rights may be impacted. Please click and read thru the below “Notice of Authorization” for official notice details relating to this class action.

Notice of Authorization


À toutes les personnes au Canada dont la grand-mère a perdu le statut d’Indienne à la suite de son mariage à un non Indien : Une action collective peut affecter vos droits.

Une action collective a été autorisée contre le Procureur général du Canada, pour le compte de toutes les personnes au Canada dont la grand-mère a perdu le statut d’Indienne et a recouvré son statut d’Indienne en vertu du paragraphe 6(1) (c) de la Loi sur les Indiens à la suite des amendements de 1985 à cette loi et dont le seul parent Indien est éligible au statut d’Indien en vertu du paragraphe 6(1)(c.1) de la Loi sur les Indiens telle qu’amendée en 2010 et qui sont elles-mêmes devenues éligibles au statut d’Indien le 31 janvier 2011 en vertu du paragraphe 6(2) de la Loi sur les Indiens.

Avis d’authorization
Merchant Law Group LLP has 10 offices across Canada, with lawyers practising law in six provinces. Merchant Law Group LLP and Tony Merchant, Q.C. are well known for pursuing class action lawsuits in Canada including litigation regarding Winners/HomeSense, Various Cellular Phone Fees, BCE Dividends, GM Gasket Manifolds, Hip Implants, Lead Paint in Toys (and similar consumer products), Maple Leaf, Celebrex/Bextra, Vioxx, Sony, Residential Schools and various other cases. Tony Merchant, Q.C. is known to be one of Canada’s most active litigators with more than 600 reported cases in leading Caselaw Journals, having argued thousands of cases before the Canadian and American Courts, in Trial and Administrative Courts, and the Courts of Appeal of various American and Canadian jurisdictions, the Federal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Tony Merchant, Q.C., has a long history in pursuing public policy cases and is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.)

    Please note: The information provided on this website is Not Legal Advice. The information may or may not be accurate. The information is for discussion purposes only. Reliance upon any information provided would not be grounds to advance a claim against Merchant Law for providing any advice. In order to get a formal legal opinion upon which you may rely about any specific fact scenario, you would have to first retain the services of a lawyer and request a formal legal opinion.