Taking too long? Close loading screen.

January 2, 2019by Jay Jorgensen

Defending Traditional Rights in the Digital Age: Ktunaxa Nation Case Study

SAGESSE: JOURNAL OF CANADIAN RECORDS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AN ARMA CANADA PUBLICATION
WINTER, 2019 VOLUME IV, ISSUE I  

 

DEFENDING TRADITIONAL RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE: KTUNAXA NATION CASE STUDY

BY MICHELLE BARROCA, BA, MAS

 

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a case study of the Ktunaxa Nation’s experience with using business and cultural records to legally defend traditional Ktunaxa rights in opposing permanent development in a culturally significant and ecologically sensitive area in the southeast corner of British Columbia.

In 2016, the Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia case became the first Indigenous Spirituality and Freedom of Religion case to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ktunaxa argued that the proposed location of a year-round ski resort in the Jumbo Valley would cause irreparable harm to their culture and spiritual beliefs.

Despite supplying decades’ worth of documentary evidence, including affidavits containing closely-held Ktunaxa spiritual beliefs, the Crown determined that the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort project does not infringe upon the Ktunaxa Nation’s right to religious practices. How is this possible when Ktunaxa spirituality, like that of other First Nations, is directly connected to the land?

Using the Ktunaxa Nation’s legal experience as the basis of this study, the author will highlight the challenges associated with documenting and using aboriginal traditional knowledge in the Canadian court system.

The content of this case study was presented by Michelle Barroca and Margaret Teneese at the ARMA Canada conference in Vancouver, BC on May 28, 2018, in addition to the ARMA Vancouver Island Chapter/Archives Association of BC conference in Victoria, BC on April 28, 2017.

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE KTUNAXA NATION

The Ktunaxa (pronounced “k-too-na-ha”), also known as Kootenay, Kootenai or Kutenai Indians, have inhabited the Kootenay and Columbia River Basins for more than 10,000 years. The Traditional Territory of the Ktunaxa Nation is approximately 70,000 sq. km within the Kootenay region of southeastern British Columbia, and historically included parts of Alberta, Montana, Idaho and Washington. Maps are provided on the following page for reference.

Ktunaxa citizenship is comprised of approximately 1500 Nation members from seven Bands situated throughout Ktunaxa Traditional Territory. Five Bands are located in British Columbia, Canada, and two are located in Idaho and Montana in the United States.

Contact occurred within the past 200 years as European explorers moved westward towards the Rocky Mountains and into Traditional Ktunaxa Territory. Permanent settlement of non-aboriginal inhabitants in the East Kootenay region followed the discovery of gold near Fort Steele in the late 1860s.

In 1886, the reserve system was implemented under the Indian Act, creating the following Ktunaxa communities in British Columbia:

  • kyaknuqǂiʔit – Shuswap Indian Band (Invermere)

Note: Many Ktunaxa descendants are registered at the Shuswap Indian Band, which opted out of the Ktunaxa Nation Council in 2005.

  • ʔakisq̓ nuk First Nation (formerly Columbia Lake Indian Band, Windermere)
  • ʔakink̓ umǂasnuqǂiʔit – Tobacco Plains Indian Band (Grasmere)
  • ʔaq̓ am – St. Mary’s Indian Band (Cranbrook)
  • yaqan nuykiy – Lower Kootenay Indian Band (Creston) 1

The Ktunaxa language is unique among indigenous linguistic groups in North America. The written form of the language was only formally adopted in the 1970s, following the closure of the St. Eugene Mission Residential School in Cranbrook. Ktunaxa have place names for landmarks throughout the Traditional Territory and numerous heritage sites confirm this region as traditional Ktunaxa lands.

 

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT 

In preparation of the closure of the Residential School and the Indian Affairs Office in Cranbrook, BC, the Kootenay Indian District Council originated in the 1960s to promote the political and social development of the Ktunaxa Nation.

Since 1982, the Ktunaxa Nation Council (KNC) has been incorporated as a registered non-profit society under the BC Societies Act and is operating as a government in anticipation of self-governance. KNC has been involved with treaty negotiations with Canada and BC since 1993 and is currently working under a revised approach towards self-government under the Rights Recognition and Reconciliation Framework. This new Core Treaty Model no longer includes “full and final” language.

KNC currently employs approximately 120 employees and contractors, and is comprised of a sector model that is representative of the poles of a teepee:

  • Economic Investment Sector
  • Education and Employment Sector
  • Lands and Resources Sector
  • Social Sector (includes Health services)
  • Traditional Knowledge and Language Sector (includes Archives)
  • Core Services, includes:
    • Communications
    • Facilities Management
    • Finance
    • Human Resources
    • Information Technology
    • Records and Information Management

Each Sector is accountable to a Sector Council, which consists of elected representatives from each of the four Ktunaxa Nation communities. The main decision- making body, the Ktunaxa Nation Executive Council, consists of the Chiefs of the four Ktunaxa Nation communities (represented by KNC), the five Sector Council Chairs and the Ktunaxa Nation Chair.

 

MANAGING KNC RECORDS

As information management professionals, we are keenly aware of the values associated with the records in our care. Most commonly, records are kept for administrative, operational, fiscal, legal and informational value to an organization. The complexities of managing recorded information in a First Nations environment areheightened by such variables as funding cycles, limited staff capacity, ever-changing technology, as well as the need to integrate intangible cultural resources, such as oral traditions and spiritual beliefs, into official recordkeeping systems.

Once traditional knowledge is documented and maintained as records, the challenges are not focused so much on the technology itself, but rather on how to leverage technology in order to ensure that access permissions are managed appropriately.

Every First Nation will need to determine what types of cultural information may be made available to whom, and when. Categories of sensitive cultural information are being identified in KNC policy with input from Nation members and Elders.

The Ktunaxa Nation Council places great importance on effectively managing its information resources and has been working towards a corporate-wide Records and Information Management Program over the past decade. Early commitment to information management began in 1997 when the Ktunaxa Nation Archives was established to support treaty negotiations.

As the official repository for all KNC inactive records with enduring value, the Archives operates in close connection with the Records and Information Management Program. The Archives contains KNC business and Ktunaxa cultural records that date back to pre-Confederation in 1867. The Archives provides access services by appointment during regular business hours. Research requests are typically received from KNC staff and contractors, community members, as well as authors, students and lawyers. The Archives has a request process in place that is guided by an Access and Use Policy and related procedures.

Active recordkeeping activities within offices reflect a hybrid environment, with staff typically relying on electronic documents for convenience, while treating paper records as “official” records. Staff tend to rely on their email systems and shared network drives for storing and accessing records. The challenge with these practices is that records are not necessarily available to others in KNC who need to access the information.

To improve the systematic control of KNC records, an electronic document management system has been in use since 2007 to store and access important KNC records across the organization, including Council meeting records, resolutions, executed agreements, policies, Traditional Use Studies, and transcribed interviews with Ktunaxa members. Security permissions are applied to the folder structure to ensure appropriate protection of sensitive and confidential business and cultural information. A project is currently underway to replace the system with a comprehensive electronic document and records management system (EDRMS) that will have robust records management functionality while being focussed on providing a positive end-user experience.

Digitization efforts have been led by the Ktunaxa Nation Archives and the Records and Information Management Program, although all KNC employees are able to scan documents on demand using optical character recognition (OCR) software from desktop scanners and multi-purpose printers. The majority of users send scans via email or save them to shared drives, while key records are saved to the electronic document management system.

The business and cultural records of KNC, like other First Nations, are intimately linked and cannot be physically separated into strict “business” and “cultural” categories.

Since recorded information is stored in various physical and electronic places, including offices, email systems and networked file shares, intellectual control is the key to managing KNC’s records. Finding aids, such as box inventory lists, are vital to identifying and locating records stored across the organization. Access to the finding aids is generally restricted to records staff due to confidentiality and privacy.

In order to accurately and effectively manage the records of a First Nation, the Archivist and/or Records Manager must be well informed of the content and context of the records. At the Ktunaxa Nation Council, sensitive cultural information is closely guarded and not necessarily shared with all Ktunaxa members. For instance, certain songs, dances and ceremonies are believed to cause physical harm to a person when provided out of context or at the wrong time. It is imperative to listen to the First Nations community with respect to the types of information that must be protected, and when it may be disclosed.

 

OVERVIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROJECT

Supported by foreign investors, the Pheidias Project Management Corporation of Vancouver, BC, submitted a proposal to the Province of British Columbia in 1991 to convert 6000 hectares of public land into a year-round, permanent, European style ski resort in the remote Jumbo Valley.2

A map of the project location with a design image of the proposed resort is provided below.3


The Jumbo Valley area is adjacent to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park and is currently devoid of year-round road access. The project intends to replace the existing helicopter skiing access with a network of 23 ski lifts across four glaciers at an elevation of 3,400 metres, which are indeed moving. Limited construction has been completed to date, with concrete slabs for the day lodge placed in a known avalanche path.4

In this case, the location of the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort project is the central issue of the dispute. The Jumbo Valley site was originally identified in the 1982 Federal-Provincial study entitled “The BC Rocky Mountain Tourism Region” as one of the two locations that would be suitable for destination ski resorts in the East Kootenays.5 Consultation with the Ktunaxa Nation was not part of the study.

The Ktunaxa Nation is not generally opposed to development within their Traditional Territory and actively collaborates with government and industry. In this particular case, however, the Ktunaxa have been steadfastly opposed to the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort project since its inception for ecological, cultural and spiritual reasons.

Qat’muk (pronounced “got-mook”) is the Ktunaxa name of the lands in the central part of the Purcell Mountains that include the area of the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort. The location is at the core of the territory of the Ktunaxa Nation and is the home of Grizzly Bear Spirit, which is a unique and indispensable source of collective as well as individual guidance, strength and protection. For the Ktunaxa, the importance of Qat’muk for Grizzly Bear Spirit is indivisibly linked with its importance for living grizzly bears, now and into the future. 6

Since the project was proposed in 1991, the Ktunaxa Nation chose to withhold detailed spiritual information regarding Qat’muk and to rely largely on scientific findings to support their position to oppose permanent development in the Jumbo Valley. Various studies were conducted regarding the potential impact to grizzly bear populations, biodiversity and water quality as a result of the Jumbo Glacier Resort project development.7 According to Kathryn Teneese, “The science was already saying the project was wrong and shouldn’t proceed. We didn’t think we needed to divulge our intimate spiritual beliefs, too.”8

Unfortunately, the Ktunaxa have been criticized for not sharing their spiritual information in detail from the outset.

As consultation with the Province continued through the 2000s, discussions tended to focus on finding “common ground” with the Ktunaxa Nation regarding the proposed ski development. Although the Ktunaxa Nation is completely opposed to permanent development in the Jumbo Valley, the Province and the Proponent tried to mitigate the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort development by reducing the overall size of the proposed resort. Missing the point that the location, not size of the resort, is at issue, the Ktunaxa Nation decided that it was time to share their intimate spiritual beliefs to protect the home of Grizzly Bear Spirit.

Early in 2009, a Ktunaxa Chief came forward to share his recent experience with the Grizzly Bear Spirit with provincial decision makers. The Ktunaxa Nation formally requested a meeting with the Premier, who declined the invitation. In September of that year, a small number of Ktunaxa members and KNC staff, met with Cabinet Minister Krueger and his Deputy Minister in confidence. Chief Luke shared his story completely in the Ktunaxa language and an interpreter was present to provide an English translation. It seemed to the Ktunaxa that the Minister was sympathetic to Ktunaxa beliefs and felt optimistic that meaningful negotiations would continue.9

Shortly afterwards, a Provincial Cabinet shuffle occurred and Minister Thomson replaced Minister Krueger as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. In attempts to continue strengthening the relationship between the Ktunaxa Nation and the Province, the Ktunaxa Nation invited the new Minister to visit Cranbrook and meet with the Ktunaxa Nation. In 2011, Chief Luke shared his same story nearly word-for-word in Ktunaxa with Minister Thompson in confidence, with assistance from the same Ktunaxa interpreter.10

Disappointingly, Minister Thomson approved the Master Development Agreement with the Proponent the following year and construction was permitted to begin in the Jumbo Valley. Absolutely no mention was made to Ktunaxa spirituality or to Section 2 Charter rights in the Minister’s decision to approve the Agreement. As a result, the Ktunaxa Nation initiated legal proceedings against the Ministry in the BC Supreme Court.

A brief chronology of key events from 1991 to present is provided for reference in the appendix at the end of the case study. The key activities and decisions serve to illustrate the different perspectives between the Ktunaxa Nation and the BC Provincial government regarding land development and meaningful consultation over the past three decades.

 

LEGAL CONTEXT

The Canadian legal system is based on case law. Some important precedents have been set for First Nations by the Delgamuukw and Tsilhoqot’in Supreme Court of Canada cases, to name only a couple. A number of excellent sources have explored these cases in detail, and only a high-level discussion will be provided here.

In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Court gave greater weight to oral history of the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en people than to written evidence. Despite this determination, oral history was confined to the evidence phase only.11

The Tsilhoqot’in v. British Columbia case broke new legal ground when the Court awarded aboriginal title to Indigenous Protected Areas spanning 1750 sq. km in the British Columbia interior. This decision recognized broad aboriginal ownership to general areas and is not “site specific.” 12

On the surface, these decisions seem to provide strong legal precedents that would support the Ktunaxa Nation in their opposition to permanent development in Qat’muk. In reality, Canadian case law and common law have proven to be inadequate mechanisms for addressing aboriginal rights and spiritual beliefs.

The intrinsic dichotomy between predominantly Western and Indigenous ideology as it pertains to the Canadian legal system has been described as follows:

There are wide cultural gulfs between what Canadian law courts and aboriginal laws most trust. In Canadian courts, there is a heavy reliance upon sworn firsthand accounts, facts established by scientific methodology, probabilities demonstrated by statistical surveys, interpretations of the wording of textual business records, and the opinions of expert professionals. Canadian legal culture prefers that transactions be substantiated by signed and dated documents. It mistrusts hearsay. It is no surprise to Canadian courts when its witnesses, who promise God to tell the truth, lie. Most Canadians live in a predominantly literate and visually-oriented culture and their courts reflect this focus by their dependence on written proof and eyewitness testimony.13

Oral traditions are fundamental to the way First Nations document the past and interpret the present. They are integral to understanding Aboriginal Rights and Title. It is a collective responsibility amongst First Nations Chiefs, Elders and citizens to learn oral traditions, such as laws, stories, songs and dances, and to transmit that knowledge to next generations.  Credibility and respect are given to oral traditions as accounts are told and retold, challenged and reconfirmed by First Nations community members throughout the centuries. Sadly, “when presenting traditional aboriginal evidence in Canadian courts, the system for creating the evidence is at odds with the system charged with evaluating it.”14

The general reliance on written documentary evidence over oral traditions in court is greatly concerning for First Nations.  In addition to having their traditional knowledge and beliefs recorded in an affidavit and dismissed as hearsay, the many writings of early anthropologists, historians and even early government officials, often include significant errors and continue to perpetuate misinformation. Moreover, most aboriginal oral traditions must be translated in order to be admitted as evidence in court, where much of the meaning is lost in the process. Serious consideration must be given to oral traditions within the legal context in order for First Nations to participate equally in court.

Regardless of the potential legal implications, the Ktunaxa Nation is actively documenting oral traditions as a mechanism for retaining and transmitting traditional knowledge. Meetings with the Elders Advisory Committee, for example, are being digitally recorded to preserve the invaluable information provided by Elders. The recordings are stored on a dedicated server with restricted access by Traditional Knowledge and Language staff. Potential uses of the information include developing language curriculum and Ktunaxa cultural publications, as well as providing documentary evidence to support the Ktunaxa in defending aboriginal rights.

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CASE

The Ktunaxa Nation have put on record through the consultation process and with the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, the clear history of opposition to the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort based principally on the probable effects of the project on foundational Ktunaxa spiritual and cultural values.15

After four years of litigation in the British Columbia court system, the Ktunaxa Nation petitioned for their case to be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.  On December 1, 2016, the Ktunaxa Nation made their mark on Canadian legal history by bringing the first Indigenous Spirituality and Freedom of Religion case in Canada.

Despite significant public support, the Ktunaxa Nation was unsuccessful at arguing that the Minister’s 2012 decision to allow the Glacier Resorts project to proceed violates their right to freedom of conscience and religion protected by s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This claim was asserted independently from the

Ktunaxa’s s. 35 claim, in which aboriginal rights to practice its religion are recognized and affirmed in the 1982 Canadian Constitution Act (Section 35(1)).16

The Supreme Court’s position can be illustrated using the following consecutive excerpts from the November 2, 2017 “landslide decision”:

…This case is not concerned with either the freedom to hold a religious belief or to manifest that belief. The claim is rather that s. 2(a) of the Charter protects the presence of Grizzly Bear Spirit in Qat’muk. This is a novel claim and invites this Court to extend s. 2(a) beyond the scope recognized in our law.17

We would decline this invitation. The state’s duty under s. 2(a) is not to protect the object of beliefs, such as Grizzly Bear Spirit. Rather, the state’s duty is to protect everyone’s freedom to hold such beliefs and to manifest them in worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. In short, the Charter protects the freedom to worship, but does not protect the spiritual focal point of worship…In this case, however, the appellants are not seeking protection for the freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or to pursue practices related to it. Rather, they seek to protect Grizzly Bear Spirit itself and the subjective spiritual meaning they derive from it. That claim is beyond the scope of s. 2(a).18

It would seem that the Supreme Court Justices misunderstood the Ktunaxa Nation’s argument. The Ktunaxa were not seeking protection for the freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or to pursue practices related to it. Rather, they sought to protect Grizzly Bear Spirit itself and the spiritual meaning derived from it. It is impossible for the Ktunaxa to separate Qat’muk from the Grizzly Bear Spirit. If this claim is beyond the scope of s.2(a) of the Charter, what hope does any First Nations have to protect their sacred areas from destruction in the name of development?

In the words of Kathryn Teneese, Ktunaxa Nation Chair, “With this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada is telling every indigenous person in Canada that your culture, history and spirituality, all deeply linked to the land, are not worthy of legal protection from the constant threat of destruction.”19

Legal counsel for the Ktunaxa Nation, Karenna Williams of Grant Huberman, goes on to say that:

The Ktunaxa people have been private or “secretive” with their spiritual beliefs. This is both because of what is called for within their own religious beliefs, and because it is was required in order for the Ktunaxa people and the Ktunaxa religion to exist within Canada. Sharing information with the Provincial government, beginning a judicial review, appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada with this most personal, secret, and sacred information showed a great deal of faith on the part of the Ktunaxa. The willingness to expose the most sacred part of what it means to be Ktunaxa was not taken lightly. The Ktunaxa did so with the hope that the Court would, earnestly, and in good faith, see them. Hear them. The majority’s decision shows clearly that the Ktunaxa people were alone in their efforts to meet the Court and other Canadians halfway. It shows a profound failure for the Court to see the Ktunaxa people at all, let alone as people whose values and beliefs deserve respect and protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.20

On the plus side, two dissenting Judges noted an inextricable connection between land and spiritual beliefs. This small comfort to the Ktunaxa Nation may yet prove to be an important legal instrument for other First Nations in Canada, as new law tends to be built on dissenting decisions.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that a significant volume of Ktunaxa Nation records was provided in electronic form. The nine Supreme Court Justices, with assistance from each of their three Clerks, referenced the responsive records entirely in paper during the hearing. From a technological perspective, the answer to the “Are we there yet?” question as it pertains to the Canadian legal system is clearly “no.”

 

CONCLUSION

Through this case study, the Canadian court system has demonstrated that it is an inappropriate mechanism for resolving First Nations issues that are central to Aboriginal identity and beliefs. In the spirit of reconciliation, it is sincerely hoped that Justices will become more willing to acknowledge and define inherent Aboriginal rights within the scope of s. 2(a) of the Charter going forward into the future. Without the willingness to acknowledge different perspectives of truth, reconciliation cannot happen.

At the time of writing this article, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision regarding the Proponent’s case against British Columbia. To add insult to injury to the Ktunaxa Nation, the Justices confirmed that the former Minister of Environment’s 2015 decision to not renew Jumbo Glacier Resort’s Environmental Assessment Certificate was “unfair.” The current Minister must now review the evidence associated with Minister Polak’s decision, which happened to be the only provincial decision that was sympathetic to Ktunaxa spiritual values and rights.

Kathryn Teneese expressed the Ktunaxa Nation’s disappointment in response to the Supreme Court decision as follows:

The irony of the situation is not lost on us…In the past, the courts went to great lengths to try to justify the Province’s failure to even consider the Ktunaxa right to freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding this ski resort. For the developer, however, the court was more than willing to cancel the Province’s decision because something wasn’t apparently adequately addressed in the Province’s decision.21

Although the legal phase of the Ktunaxa journey to protect Qat’muk may be over, the Ktunaxa Nation will remain firmly opposed to any permanent development in the Jumbo Valley area. Like other Aboriginal people in Canada, the Ktunaxa have extensive oral traditions. Language and culture is deeply rooted in the land. The critical work that is being done at the Ktunaxa Nation Council will continue, including calling upon the Crown to act in the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s “94 Calls to Action”, finalizing the Qat’muk Stewardship Plan, and digitally capturing traditional knowledge as important information assets of enduring value to the Ktunaxa Nation.

 

APPENDIX: CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS

The following chronology summarizes the key events surrounding the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort project in the Jumbo Valley. The source of the chronology from March 1991 to March 2012 is Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was accepted by the SCC on October 1, 2015.



WORKS CITED

British Columbia. BC Gov News. Jumbo Becomes Mountain Resort Municipality. 20 November 2012. Web. 23 August 2018.
British Columbia. BC Gov News. Jumbo Glacier Resort Project Not Substantially Started. June 18, 2015. Web. 23 August 2018.
British Columbia. Minister of Environment. Reasons for Ministers Determination In the Matter of a Substantially Started Determination under Section 18(5) of the Act for the Jumbo Glacier Resort Project of Glacier Resorts Ltd. 18 June 2015.
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010. Supreme Court of Canada. Web. 23 August 2018.
Glacier Resorts Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Environment), 2018 BCSC 1389.
Supreme Court of British Columbia. Web.  23 August 2018.
Ktunaxa Nation Council. Media Release: Ktunaxa Nation Disappointed with BC Supreme Court Ruling. [Cranbrook, B.C.] 21 August 2018.—–. Qat’muk Declaration. [Cranbrook, B.C.] 2010.
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations).
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 2015.
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations).
Court of Appeal for British Columbia. 2015 BCCA 352.
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations).
Supreme Court of British Columbia. 2014 BCSC 568.
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54. Supreme Court of Canada. 2017.
Pheidias Project Management Corporation, Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort: Project Proposal Outline. [Vancouver, B.C.] 1995.
Pylypchuk, Mary Ann. The Value of Aboriginal Records as Legal Evidence in Canada: An Examination of Sources. Archivaria 32, Summer 1991.
Skimap.org. Jumbo Mountain Resort: Trail System for the Resort. 2000. Web. 23 August 2018.
Teneese, Kathryn. Correspondence. [Cranbrook, BC] [Provincial Government] 18 September 2017—–Personal Interview. 4 April 2017—–. Personal Interview. 19 June 2018.
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256. Supreme Court of Canada. Web. 17 August 2018.
Williams, Karenna. Correspondence. [Vancouver, B.C.] [Kathryn Teneese] 2 November 2017.

 

 

1Driving time between Invermere and Creston is approximately 4 hours, with Cranbrook located roughly in the middle. Grasmere is approximately 1 hour from Cranbrook to the southeast.
2Pheidias Project Management Corporation, Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort: Project Proposal Outline, 1995.
3Skimap.org, Jumbo Mountain Resort, 23 August 2018.
4The concrete foundation of the day lodge was the only construction completed prior to the provincial government’s Environmental Assessment Certificate deadline in 2014. See Minister of Environment, Reasons for Ministers Determination In the Matter of a Substantially Started Determination under Section 18(5) of the Act for the Jumbo Glacier Resort Project of Glacier Resorts Ltd 18 June 2015.
5Ibid., p. 5.
6Qat’muk Declaration, 15 November 2010.
7See Appendix.
8Kathryn Teneese, Personal Interview, 4 April 2017.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
11See Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010.
12See Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256.
13Mary Ann Pylypchuk, Value of Aboriginal Records, Archivaria 32 (Summer 1991), p.66.
14Ibid., p. 52.
15Kathryn Teneese, correspondence 18 September 2017.
16Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), Supreme Court Judgement [58].
17Ibid, [70]
18Ibid, [71]
19Ktunaxa Nation Council, Media Release, 2 November 2017.
20Karenna Williams, correspondence to Kathryn Teneese, 2 November 2017.
21Ktunaxa Nation Council, Media Release, 21 August 2018.
22BC Gov News, Jumbo Becomes Mountain Resort Municipality, 20 November 2012.
23Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2014 BCSC 568. 24 Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2015 BCCA 352. 25 BC Gov News, Jumbo Glacier Resort Project Not Substantially Started, 18 June 2015.
26Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2015 BCCA 352.
27Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54.
28Ibid.
29Glacier Resorts Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Environment), 2018 BCSC 1389