The short answer
On 11 January 2019 Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould publicly issued a directive on the federal Crown’s civil litigation involving Indigenous peoples. It sought a less adversarial approach grounded in recognition of rights and reconciliation. The document concerned how government lawyers worked; it was neither a new constitutional judgment nor a direction to stop a particular criminal prosecution. This guide explains that historical policy, not current legal advice.
Chronology
A timeline of the turning points
Principles and internal practice
Government principles on Crown–Indigenous relations inform an evolving litigation approach.
A public explanation
Wilson-Raybould describes internal directions and her intention to publish them.
Directive publicly issued
The Justice release says the approach has already been applied for nearly two years.
A procedural distinction
In committee, she distinguishes this internal civil direction from gazetted directions to the public prosecutor.
Debate and institutional continuity
Commentary considers its significance; the later transition book includes it in the civil-litigation overview.
Publication made an earlier internal approach visible
The January 2019 announcement did not describe an overnight invention. It said the Justice Department had applied the approach for nearly two years. Wilson-Raybould had also explained internal litigation directions in her November 2018 address to British Columbia leaders, promising greater transparency through publication.
The directive developed from the government’s principles on relations with Indigenous peoples and its stated shift towards recognizing rights. Dating the public document accurately preserves both stages: earlier work inside the department and a later statement that communities, counsel and the public could inspect. Neither stage by itself demonstrates that every federal lawsuit subsequently followed the intended approach.
Civil litigation involved clients, counsel and the whole government
The policy addressed section 35 litigation and other Crown obligations towards Indigenous peoples. Departments generally supplied instructions as clients, while Justice lawyers acted for the federal Crown as a whole. The attorney general’s responsibilities therefore extended beyond advancing one department’s immediate preference.
The November 2019 transition book explains that structure and separately identifies the Public Prosecution Service and its director as responsible for federal prosecutions. This separation helps explain why the word “directive” can mislead. An internal framework for civil claims was not the same instrument as a direction concerning a prosecution, even though one officeholder had responsibilities in both fields.
The guidelines targeted ordinary habits of adversarial advocacy
The twenty guidelines called for early engagement, active consideration of settlement, narrower disputes and clear, respectful communication. Counsel were to make appropriate admissions rather than broadly deny everything an Indigenous party alleged. Recognition of an existing right could still leave its geographical or substantive scope to be proved.
Guideline 14 discouraged reflexive technical defences. Limitation and equitable arguments required a principled basis, supporting evidence and the specified senior approval. The document thus addressed pleadings, language, procedure and institutional decisions, not only the final settlement figure. Such details explain how a broad reconciliation commitment was translated into proposed changes in daily legal work.
Sources for this section: [1]
Settlement goals did not abolish courts or valid legal positions
The directive acknowledged Indigenous peoples’ entitlement to choose their forum and recognized that litigation might be unavoidable. It also stated that seeking resolution did not require abandoning valid legal positions. Courts could still clarify unresolved questions, while negotiations or partial agreements narrowed what required a judicial answer.
In the February committee exchange, Wilson-Raybould explained that this direction went to Justice litigators rather than through the gazetting process used for general prosecution directives. It neither granted every claim automatically nor rewrote section 35. Understanding those limits prevents a policy for Crown conduct from being mistaken for an adjudication of rights or an instruction about SNC-Lavalin.
Contemporary reactions highlighted the importance of follow-through
Windspeaker’s March 2019 report interviewed legal scholar Hadley Friedland, who regarded the principles as significant and emphasized respectful advocacy and constraints on routine technical defences. Her assessment was prospective: she hoped the next attorney general would implement the approach seriously and suggested Indigenous counsel should press for compliance.
The same report recorded concern that executive policy could be changed by a successor. Its historical importance therefore lies partly in making expectations explicit and contestable. Publication created a standard against which conduct could be assessed; it was not an implementation audit, a guarantee of settlement or a permanent substitute for constitutional law and political negotiation.
Sources for this section: [4]
Continue the chronology
Related history guides
The SNC-Lavalin Ethics Report, 2019
Distinguish the separate criminal-prosecution controversy and section 9 ethics finding from this civil-litigation policy.
Read the timeline1980–1982Canada’s 1982 Constitution and Charter
Return to patriation and the constitutional recognition of Indigenous rights in section 35.
Read the timelineBiography context
Explore Canada through connected lives
Connected biographies
The attorney general’s wider career
1971–
Jody Wilson-Raybould
Lawyer, author, former justice minister and Indigenous leaderA We Wai Kai lawyer and former regional chief whose federal cabinet career was followed by independent parliamentary service and writing about reconciliation and leadership.Read biographyQuick answers
Common questions
- Did the approach begin on 11 January 2019?
- That was the public issue date. The accompanying release said the department had already applied the approach for nearly two years.
- Was this a criminal prosecution directive?
- No. It concerned federal civil litigation involving Indigenous peoples. Wilson-Raybould distinguished it in committee from gazetted directions to the public prosecutor.
- Did the government have to concede every Indigenous claim?
- No. The text called for principled positions, recognition where appropriate and efforts to narrow or settle disputes, while preserving valid legal arguments and necessary litigation.
- Does this guide establish the current legal position in a case?
- No. It explains a historical policy document and contemporary reactions. It does not determine present rights, procedures or the merits of any individual claim.
Primary and institutional sources
How this history was checked
The actual directive foreword, application, objectives and selected guidelines, dated release, November speech and litigation overview control this account. Selected committee exchanges distinguish civil and prosecution directions; the full hearing and transition book were not read. Windspeaker provides contemporary legal commentary, not proof of later compliance. The 2014 portrait is illustrative. No present legal advice is offered. This article was reviewed on Reviewed 23 October 2026.
- Department of Justice CanadaThe Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples: foreword, application and selected guidelines
- Department of Justice CanadaAttorney General issues Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, 11 January 2019
- Department of Justice CanadaWilson-Raybould’s address to the BC Leaders Gathering, 29 November 2018
- WindspeakerShari Narine: Wilson-Raybould’s final directive promotes fundamental change in conflict resolution, 15 March 2019
- House of Commons / Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsEvidence, meeting 135, 27 February 2019: selected exchange on civil and prosecution directives
- Department of Justice CanadaNovember 2019 ministerial transition book: Litigation Overview
- Wikimedia Commons / Erich SaideJody Wilson-Raybould, 30 January 2014: CC BY-SA 3.0 and VRT-confirmed copyright-holder permission