Jurisdiction Denied: Federal Court Upholds Treaty-based Forum Selection In Nunatsiavut Shrimp Quota Challenge

What happens when litigants knock on the Federal Court’s door to challenge an Indigenous government decision made under a modern treaty? On June 9, 2026, Justice Grammond of the Federal Court answered that question in a decision with potentially significant implications for Indigenous communities governed by modern land claims agreements.

In Krista Mitchell et al. v The Nunatsiavut Government, 2026 FC 755 (Court file No. T-1381-24), the Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a shrimp quota allocation decision made by the Nunatsiavut Government’s Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, holding that Federal Court had no jurisdiction. The proper forum? The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the parties to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement had carefully negotiated.

Members of Gowling WLG's Indigenous Law Group, Graham Ragan, Brian Crane, K.C., and Léa Desjardins, successfully represented the Nunatsiavut Government in having the judicial review dismissed.

Background

The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, a modern treaty concluded between the Labrador Inuit, the Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, establishes the Nunatsiavut Government as the self-governing body of the Inuit people of Nunatsiavut, a region encompassing most of Labrador’s northern coast. The Land Claims Agreement grants the Nunatsiavut Government authority over fisheries, including the power to determine who may harvest fish under commercial fishing licenses issued to it.

Every year, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans issues a communal fishing licence to the Nunatsiavut Government for northern shrimp. The Nunatsiavut Government, in turn, allocates that quota among eligible beneficiaries through a detailed internal process governed by its Commercial Fishery Designation Policy. The Policy provides for both multi-year and annual designations, with multi-year applications receiving priority consideration to encourage long-term business planning and vessel ownership by beneficiaries.

In 2024, 18 beneficiaries applied to receive quota designation. Of the 18, a single applicant applied for a multi-year designation. Under the process set out in the Policy, the multi-year applicant was assessed first and ultimately received a five-year designation and approximately 43% of the communal shrimp quota. The applicants, six beneficiary fishers, submitted single-year applications for shrimp quota and were unsuccessful in receiving allocation. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the applicants sought judicial review in the Federal Court, alleging the Nunatsiavut Government Minister’s decision was unreasonable, biased and procedurally unfair.

The Court’s decision: No jurisdiction

Justice Grammond dismissed the application on the threshold question of jurisdiction. He held that section 17.31.22 of the Land Claims Agreement grants exclusive jurisdiction over judicial review of Nunatsiavut Government administrative decisions to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the Federal Court. By virtue of section 6(1) of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, the Agreement prevails over any inconsistent federal or provincial legislation, including section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The applicants argued that section 17.31.22 does not confer exclusive jurisdiction, such that the Federal Court and the provincial court should have concurrent jurisdiction. Justice Grammond rejected this, noting that concurrent jurisdiction over judicial review is virtually unheard of in Canadian law and would require more explicit language.

The applicants also argued that because the Nunatsiavut Government’s authority to designate fishers originates in the federal Fisheries Act, the Minister was acting as a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” subject to Federal Court review under section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. Justice Grammond disagreed and found the Agreement confers jurisdiction based on the identity of the decision-maker, the Nunatsiavut Government, not the source of its power.

Key takeaways

Land claims agreements must be respected on jurisdiction

This decision reinforces that when a Land Claims Agreement allocates judicial review jurisdiction to a particular court, those provisions must be given effect, even when the effect is to oust the Federal Court, which usually under section 18 has jurisdiction over judicial review of federal administrative action. In this case, the Land Claims Agreement prevailed over the Federal Courts Act by virtue of its constitutional status and the paramountcy provisions in its implementing legislation.

Self-government powers are not federal powers

Justice Grammond also held that when an Indigenous government exercises a self government authority under a modern treaty, not under federal legislation or Crown prerogative, it is not acting as a “federal board, commission or other tribunal.” This particular finding has implications well-beyond fisheries: any self-government decision made under a treaty authority may fall outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, even if the underlying scheme is federally based, as in this case with fisheries.

Justice Grammond noted that many Land Claims Agreements contain provisions similar to section 17.31.22. A finding of concurrent Federal Court jurisdiction would have undermined the forum-selection choices in all those agreements. This decision is a precedent for other modern treaties and provides support for the jurisdictional architecture of the treaty to be upheld.

Please feel free to contact one of the authors or a member of our Indigenous Law team if you have any questions.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com