2025/2026 Scholar in Residence Larry Chartrand: Applying Métis Legal Principles to the Question of a National Definition of Métis

By Author(s) - Val Ouellet

The Wahkohtowin Law & Governance Lodge (WLGL) was honoured to have Métis scholar and Professor Emeritus Larry Chartrand, the 2025/2026 WLGL Scholar in Residence, share his seminar "Applying Métis Legal Principles to the Question of a National Definition of Métis" on February 11, 2026.

Professor Chartrand provided context on Métis law and the ways it shapes how Métis people constitute and govern themselves. He also outlined some of the pathways to understanding how these laws influence everyday practices, from day-to-day dispute resolution to broader governance structures. 

Throughout his seminar, Professor Chartrand gave a living sense of this commitment to Métis legal traditions, weaving his personal connection into this work and these laws, and sharing details about his home and his family's origins. His family is deeply rooted in the prairies, having moved and travelled all over. This personal history reflects his connection to European, Cree, and Ojibway traditions that blend into the Métis legal traditions that Professor Chartrand details in his talk. His positionality within and to Métis legal traditions provides him a unique opportunity to draw on his ancestral and lived experiences and to make connections between this experience and governance structures based on Métis history and legal traditions. 

In speaking of Métis law and its ground-up approach, Professor Chartrand described a multilevel governance system that places the family as a locus of authority, which grounds community authority, which in turn grounds larger national authority. He connects this multilevel governance system to a set of historical governance principles that were articulated at the Manitoba Métis Federation 1991 Métis Elders' Conference as constitutive elements of Métis law, including: 1) individual freedom, which is paramount to this structure, 2) direct democracy practiced at the local and community levels, 3) authority sourced at the local level that can be exercised upon approval at the regional and national levels, and 4) decision processes that are consensual and inclusive. These operate at several levels of authority within a decentralized, ground-up governance structure, depending on the concern and what is needed to fully resolve the issue at hand. Historically, legal resolution and social control mechanisms were instituted at the family level, transferred to the community when necessary, and only occasionally expressed at the national level. Collective laws evolved from the Buffalo Hunt and, in cases like that of the Buffalo Hunt, became codified as Métis communities became more physically rooted in place. 

Professor Chartrand also explained how Métis legal traditions are recognized in international and Canadian law through instruments such as section 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and section 35 of Canada's Constitution. While these legal traditions can often go unrecognized in Canadian legal contexts, recognition can be found through the common-law test known as the Powley test, first articulated in R v Powley, 2003 SCC 43, which is a multi-step process for determining whether the claimant has a protected Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution. As stated by Professor Chartrand, this test can be used to determine customary adoption and marriage, but has yet to be used in a way that could support a right to social control and governance within Métis society, which could further the discussion and movement towards self-governance.

He notes that the Powley test has consistently taken a narrow approach to achieving self-governance. It requires validation and recognition of narrow, more specific governance areas rather than a single, broader idea of self-governance. As Professor Chartrand shared, the Federal Court's decision in Métis Settlements General Council v. Canada (Crown-Indigenous Relations) 2024 FC 487 ["Métis Settlements v Canada”] impacts broader Métis nation governance systems. In this case, the Fort McKay Métis Nation sought to be excluded from the self-government agreement between Canada and the Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) on the grounds that the Fort McKay Métis Nation did not consent to their inclusion. Fort McKay Métis Nation maintained that subsuming its self-governance into the MNA's structure and governance body, without its consent, violated its right to self-governance and was inconsistent with the Crown's duty to consult. Justice Grammond of the Federal Court ultimately agreed with Fort McKay Metis Nation [Métis Settlements v Canada, para 57].

Professor Chartrand considers the role of Indigenous law in this kind of dispute, asking how this decision is, or is not, consistent with Métis law surrounding ground-up governance, and specifically the extent to which this decision impacts whether communities have the power to choose whether they want to be part of the larger Métis nation. He further considers how Métis law might be evolving from its roots in ground-up decision-making towards more top-down approaches (for example, organizing through permanent regional authorities such as the Métis Nation of Alberta). 

He also raises a concern about jurisdiction and the issue of governance disputes arising within Métis communities being brought to Canadian courts rather than settled through Métis processes and the application of Métis law. Considering these kinds of situations, he posits that, according to Métis law, Métis communities can withdraw their support from regional or national level governance but not if doing so threatens the welfare of the Métis or the Nation as a whole. He encourages Métis people to consider such questions seriously, including questions about the impact of Canadian court decisions on Métis law, rather than providing definitive answers. 

Professor Chartrand's lecture gives rise to concerns about the right to define and govern Métis society, and how to relate to other nations, including both other Indigenous nations and Canada. Since Métis law is based on relationships among individuals, families, communities, and the nation as a whole, governance structures developed from the outside may not always align with the legal traditions they seek to recognize. Therefore, the question here is not whether Canadian law will recognize the right to self-government, but whether it will recognize the existing legal traditions and principles of Métis society. Recentering Métis law entails granting Métis communities the right to be active participants in the processes of defining the law, relations, and governance structures.