The Emergence of Indigenous Court Systems: Planting the Seeds for a Métis Court in Saskatchewan

In recent years, there has been an emergence of Indigenous-led justice systems across Canada and the world. In 2016, the Mohawk Band Council of Akwesasne introduced what is considered the first court in Canada for and by Indigenous people.[1] Similarly, other Indigenous-led justice systems have begun to develop across the country, such as the BC First Nations Justice Strategy and the Court of Kahnawà:ke, which considers an array of legal disputes, including summary conviction offences, contested traffic tickets, and traditional laws.[2]

A Métis Judiciary in Saskatchewan

These trailblazing developments have inspired the Métis-Nation of Saskatchewan (“MN-S”) to begin the development of a Métis Judicial System (i.e., “Métis Kwayaskastasowin Judiciary”; “Tribunal”; “Court”; or “Body”) within the province.

What Does this Mean for Saskatchewan?

The current development of a Métis Judiciary in Saskatchewan leaves many Métis people, legal professionals, and the general public curious about how this body will operate in practice alongside the existing Canadian legal system.

Last summer, Sophia Lagimodiere and Kristian St. Onge were honoured to be invited, amongst a well-rounded group of Métis people in Saskatoon, to participate in and consult at a prototyping workshop on the new body. Moreover, on May 26, 2024, they virtually attended the MN-S Legislative Assembly, where Marilyn Poitras, the Principal Designer for the project, released a report updating the public on the status of the Métis Judiciary.

As discussed by Poitras, the Métis Judiciary is a dispute resolution alternative to the traditional court system. It would not replace the province’s current judicial system; rather, it hopes to provide further access to justice by tailoring itself to the unique needs and experience of Métis people. Furthermore, the Métis Judiciary aims to be independent from the political arm of MN-S.

This holistic body would be governed by the constitution of the MN-S, which governs Métis elections, citizenship, and harvesting disputes. Future matters that it is likely to preside over include MN- S laws, like specific harvesting matters, as well as divered criminal matters, sentencing, and disposition diversion. Recent developments, such as Bill C-92 and agreements between MN-S and the Federal Government, foreshadow that Métis Child and Family Services matters will also likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Métis Judiciary. Aside from helping to resolve disputes, the Judiciary will also include Education Programs, Swearing-In Ceremonies, Civil Marriages, and Adoptions.

What makes the Métis Judiciary particularly unique is that it is not lawyer-centered; it is for Métis people, by Métis people. Disputes plan to be adjudicated through a panel of 1 Métis Judge, 1 Elder, and 1 Youth. The resolution process would begin with a Facilitation Panel and, where needed, go to a Hearing Panel. Voting would be unanimous, but where a decision cannot be made, the majority rules.

Additionally, those eligible to use it may choose to be represented by whomever they feel most comfortable speaking to their interests in the resolution process, whether that be a Métis lawyer, family member, Elder, or other professional. It has community inclusion at its core.

While the Métis Judiciary development is still in its infancy, it poses an interesting time for Métis people, legal professionals, and the general public to reflect on how alternative dispute resolution opportunities can facilitate greater access to justice.

Please reach out if you have inquiries regarding this subject matter, and we would be more than happy to assist. 

[1] Giuseppe Valiante, “Akewasne creates first court in Canada for and by Indigenous people”, CBC News (October 2, 2016), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/akwesasne-indigenous-court-canada-1.3787969>.

[2] Angelique EagleWoman (Wambdi A. Was’teWinyan), “Envisioning Indigenous Community Courts to Realize Justice in Canada for First Nations” (2019) 56:3 Alberta Law Review 669 at 669.

Note: This article is of a general nature only and is not exhaustive of all possible legal rights or remedies. In addition, laws may change over time and should be interpreted only in the context of particular circumstances. This article is not intended to be relied upon or taken as legal advice or opinion. Readers should consult a legal professional for specific advice in any particular situation.

About the Author

Sophia Lagimodiere is a Student at Law at Robertson Stromberg LLP. She received her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Saskatchewan in 2023. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts (High Honours) in Political Studies with a Minor in Psychology from the University of Saskatchewan (2020).

Related News and Articles

Do you need a development permit?

Land is zoned to regulate development, ensure public health and safety, and promote the general welfare of the community. The Planning and Development Act (the “PDA”) gives local governing bodies the authority to oversee the planning process. Zoning bylaws dictate the...

read more

Protecting Estate Inheritances from Family Law Claims

Most parents intend to leave at least a portion of their estates to their children. What some parents may not realize is that the inheritance they leave their children could turn into “divisible family property” down the road in the event a child’s spousal...

read more

Do you need a development permit?

Land is zoned to regulate development, ensure public health and safety, and promote the general welfare of the community. The Planning and Development Act (the “PDA”) gives local governing bodies the authority to oversee the planning process. Zoning bylaws dictate the allowable usage of land and often outline the permitted and discretionary uses of the land. These bylaws are essential in managing development and future growth within a community by coordinating local development including the separation of incompatible land uses.

Many zoning bylaws define “development” as the carrying out of any building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on or over land or the making of any material change in the use or intensity of the use of any building or land.  As such, to construct, erect, place, alter, repair, renovate, or reconstruct a building/structure, a Development Permit is required in almost all cases.

The Saskatchewan Municipal Board’s Planning Appeals Committee (the “Appeals Committee”) recently dealt with the question of what constitutes a “development” under the PDA in the case of Ryan Martin, Leanne Martin, Jason Brittner and Tamara Brittner v Mervin (Rural Municipality), 2020 SKMB 42 [“Mervin”].

In Mervin, two recreational vehicles (“RVs”) were placed on a property without obtaining a development permit, resulting in an “Order to Remedy Development” being issued against the landowners by the Municipality. The landowners appealed the decision, and the Appeals Committee had to determine whether the placement of the two RVs on the land constituted a development that would require a development permit.  

The Appeals Committee found that placing two RVs on the property was a change of use and constituted a development that required a permit. At paragraph 14 of the Mervin ruling, the Appeals Committee found:

[14] Upon consideration, our decision turns on whether the Applicants’ establishment of the two RVs on the subject property constitutes a “development ” as defined under the Bylaw and the Act. We agree with the RMs assertion that placing two RVs on the subject property is a change in use and constitutes a “development’.  We have confirmed with the Appellants that the RVs were brought onto the subject property after purchasing the land. This action resulted in a “change of use” of the subject property as defined in the Bylaw.

As part of their analysis, the Appeals Committee determined that had the landowners been allowed to retain the RVs on the land without a permit, it would have constituted a special privilege inconsistent with the restrictions placed on the neighbouring properties in the Zoning District.

If you start the development process without acquiring the necessary approvals, an Order of Compliance or other enforcement measures may be imposed against you. If you are planning to develop land or are uncertain about whether or not you may require a Development Permit, please don’t hesitate to reach out to one of our lawyers. We would be more than happy to assist you.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

Sarah is an associate lawyer with Robertson Stromberg and was called to the bar in 2023. While at law school, Sarah worked for the Ministry of Justice as a traffic prosecutor. She went on to complete her articles with the Ministry and worked as a Crown Prosecutor before joining Roberston Stromberg. 

Contact Sarah at 1-306-933-1388 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice before taking action in specific situations.

Related News and Articles

Do you need a development permit?

Land is zoned to regulate development, ensure public health and safety, and promote the general welfare of the community. The Planning and Development Act (the “PDA”) gives local governing bodies the authority to oversee the planning process. Zoning bylaws dictate the...

read more

Protecting Estate Inheritances from Family Law Claims

Most parents intend to leave at least a portion of their estates to their children. What some parents may not realize is that the inheritance they leave their children could turn into “divisible family property” down the road in the event a child’s spousal...

read more

To Post or Not to Post: Social Media, Informal Communication and Professional Obligations

When I started practicing law, a partner at my firm warned me that “you’re never not a lawyer”. He explained that there is no clear distinction between your personal and professional life. As a lawyer, regardless of whether you were “off duty” or not, your professional reputation can be negatively impacted by what you say and do.

This wisdom holds true more now than ever in a social media world. Having the ability to instantaneously transmit comments, pictures and videos to an unlimited audience can lead to dangerous results for professionals. We have seen this in a number of recent regulatory and court decisions.

Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association

One of the early decisions highlighting the dangers of social media is Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association, 2020 SKCA 112. Ms. Strom is a registered nurse. Her grandfather passed away at St. Joseph’s Health Center in Macklin, Saskatchewan. Ms. Strom posted comments on her personal Facebook page about the care her grandfather had received in his last days at St. Joseph’s. She also tweeted those comments to the Saskatchewan’s Minister of Health and the Saskatchewan opposition leader. Some of the employees at St. Joseph’s took exception to the posts and reported them to Ms. Strom’s professional regulator (the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Association). Ms. Strom was charged with professional misconduct because the SRNA indicated that she was bound to follow proper channels, not negatively impact the reputation of the facility and staff, obtain all of the facts before making statements on social media, and not use her status as a registered nurse for personal purposes. Initially, Ms. Strom was found guilty of professional misconduct, which decision was upheld by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. The decision was though later overturned by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in overturning the determination of professional misconduct, provided some clarification on when off-duty conduct can amount to professional misconduct. The general question is whether there is a sufficient nexus between the off-duty conduct and the profession. There was little evidence to suggest that Ms. Strom’s communications would have any impact on the profession or the public. Further, the discipline panel did not properly consider Ms. Strom’s right to freedom of expression. While freedom of expression is not absolute and can be abrogated to some extent based on the demands of the profession, the full contextual factors were not considered by the discipline committee.

The takeaways from Strom for professionals are that (1) off-duty communications can amount to professional misconduct if there is a sufficient nexus between the communications and the profession; (2) professionals should be free to engage in debate and dialogue, but professionals would be wise to consider tone, audience, and whether to identify as a professional.

Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario

Another well-publicized decision regarding off-duty, social media communication is Peterson v College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685. This case involves the well-known author, Jordan Peterson. Dr. Peterson published several tweets and made remarks on the Joe Rogan podcast that were considered by individuals to be offensive. The decision outlines the remarks made in greater detail, but they include:

  1. Two tweets appearing to invite social media posters to kill themselves;
  2. Several insults directed at various individuals, including an indication that a doctor who had performed breast removal on the actor Elliot Page was a criminal; and
  3. Demeaning language regarding the appearance of a plus-sized model.

In his Twitter bio, Dr. Peterson referenced to his standing as a psychologist.

The investigation committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario reviewed the complaint and tweets (along with Dr. Peterson’s responses) and concluded that the communications constituted professional misconduct. They found that the communications posed risk of harm to the public and could undermine public trust in the profession of psychology. The investigators required that Dr. Peterson enter a coaching program on professionalism in public statements.

The decision of the investigation committee was appealed by Dr. Peterson. That appeal was dismissed. The Court noted that Dr. Peterson’s remarks were not conversations with friends or colleagues, but public statements to broad audiences with a vast following. Further, the Court thought it was notable that Dr. Peterson was referring to himself as a clinical psychologist when making the statements. Dr. Peterson sought leave to appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the leave request was denied.

The takeaways from the Peterson decision include: (1) identifying your profession while making off-duty statements is a consideration as to whether you have committed “professional” misconduct; (2) intemperate statements made to a broad audience are more likely to amount to professional misconduct; (3) the connection between the profession and the statements is a relevant consideration (eg. a psychologist, whose profession counsels those contemplating suicide, inferring that individuals kill themselves may impact the reputation of the profession).

Pitter v College of Nurses of Ontario

In Pitter v College of Nurses of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5513, two nurses who spoke out on social media and at a public gathering against masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic were charged with professional misconduct. Both identified themselves as registered nurses. One nurse’s comments included allegations that vaccines had the ability to track and manipulate thoughts and movement and were part of a conspiracy. The other nurse suggested that vaccines cause cancer and will impact fertility (in an effort to decrease the global population).

The nurses were cautioned for their statements (made during their “off-duty” time), which decision was upheld on appeal to the Court.

The takeaway from Pitter is that a professional can be cautioned for spreading misinformation, particularly if that misinformation is connected to the profession itself (eg. a health professional spreading misinformation about health-related matters).

Chaban v Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario

A more recent case is Chaban v Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 1075. This case involved a dentist making short Tiktok videos containing sexual innuendo. In one video, the dentist pulls down his mask and, smiling, licks his upper teeth while the music accompanying the video states “Would you like me to seduce you?”. The second video had a caption saying “when you give your patient an oral exam and see a circle pattern at the back of their throat.” Five seconds into the video, the dentist cocks his eyebrows and smiles.

The dental college found that these postings were inappropriate and required him to attend for an oral caution and complete a remedial program. He appealed that determination, which appeal was dismissed by the Court.

The takeaway from the Chaban case is that the reputation of the profession can be negatively impacted by making public, unprofessional communications.

Conclusion

Professionals must consider their reputations and the impact of the profession before publishing materials, particularly when they are identifying as professionals. There is no bright line between personal and professional lives when it comes to social media postings. So, a professional is wise to err on the side of caution.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

Sean Sinclair is a partner with Robertson Stromberg LLP. His main areas of practice are Media Law / Defamation, Family Law, Estate Litigation, and Administrative Law. Contact Sean at 1-306-933-1367 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice before taking action in specific situations.

Protecting Estate Inheritances from Family Law Claims

Most parents intend to leave at least a portion of their estates to their children. What some parents may not realize is that the inheritance they leave their children could turn into “divisible family property” down the road in the event a child’s spousal relationship ends. That reality means that if your child goes through a divorce, their ex-spouse may have a legal entitlement to some of the inheritance. This may produce a result that you never intended.

The intention of this article is to provide practical tips to try and avoid this result.

Firstly, the timing of the inheritance is an important factor.

If your child receives their inheritance prior to marriage or entering a common-law relationship, then they can claim an exemption for the inheritance pursuant to section 23 of The Family Property Act (Saskatchewan). What this means is that if your child later separates from their spouse they can claim that the value of their inheritance at the start of the spousal relationship should not be shared since they received it prior to the relationship.

However, if the inheritance is received after your child’s spousal relationship commenced they cannot claim an exemption for the inheritance i.e. they cannot claim that it should not be divided at all with their spouse in the event of separation. However, they can claim an unequal division of the inheritance under section 21 of The Family Property Act (Saskatchewan), which can help ensure that they keep more than half of the inheritance.

Secondly, it matters what your child does with their inheritance.

Homes and household good are treated specially under the law. For example, if they invest the inheritance into a house for their family to live in, they would lose the ability to claim an exemption even if the inheritance was received prior to the start of the relationship. The home would be, presumptively, equally divided between the parties. As another example, if your child uses their inheritance to purchase furniture (which is technically considered a household good under the legislation) they will not be able to claim that portion of the inheritance as exempt.

As a result, it’s a good idea to explain to your children that they should be careful how they spend their inheritance, and potentially seek legal advice before making any large purchases.

Because of how these items are treated differently, in general the best thing your child can do with their inheritance is keep it in a separate bank or investment account and not use the funds for family spending or purchases. This is, understandably, not practical in many cases. However, ideally if they have another source of funds to use for these purchases then those funds should be used rather than their inheritance, where possible.

Thirdly, your intention matters.

If there are ever disputes in the future over how much of an inheritance your child’s estranged spouse may be entitled to, one factor the court examines is what your intention in leaving the gift to your child was. This is why it becomes very important that you have a specific clause in your Will indicating that you only intend for your child’s inheritance to benefit your child, and not their spouse. We recommend you seek legal advice in drafting your Will to ensure the proper wording is included in this clause.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Reference Re an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children Youth and Families 2024 SCC 5

What does the Supreme Court decision mean for Métis government and citizens in Saskatchewan?

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in [Translated] Reference Re an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children Youth and Families 2024 SCC 5 (“the Decision”). The Court was tasked with answering the question: “is the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, Youth and Families (the “Act”) ultra vires (beyond the power of) the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution of Canada?

Departing from the conclusion of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which held that the reference question was constitutional, except for ss. 21 and 22(3), which were not, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act as a whole fall within Parliament’s exclusive legislative authority for First Nations, Inuit and Métis under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Further, the Court found that the Act codified Parliament’s affirmation that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 includes a right of self-government in relation to child, youth and family services setting out Parliament’s understanding of specific section 35 rights. While the affirmations are not final determinations on the scope of section 35, they do have legal effect and bind the Crown’s future conduct. The Crown can no longer deny the existence of this right.

What does that mean for Canada?

The outcome of the Decision is an affirmation of what Canada committed to in 2016 when its government made a commitment internationally to support and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (“UNDRIP”) “without qualification”. The Court provided its most substantive discussion on UNDRIP to date, which bodes well for future judicial consideration of UNDRIP to inform the interpretation of section 35 and the implementation of its Articles.

The Court strongly endorsed the Act as a form of “legislative reconciliation”, referring to how the Act weaves the affirmation of inherent rights, mechanisms for the exercise of FIRST Nations, Inuit and Métis legislative authority, federal minimum national standards, and international minimum standards together. Importantly, the Decision also identified the Act does not purport to be the source of these rights but proceeds on the premise that these rights exist independently.

What does the Decision mean for the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (“MN-S”)?

Saskatchewan will be impacted largely the same as every province or territory in the country. The federal government has recognized the MN-S as the Indigenous Governing Body (“IGB”) for the purposes of the Act for Saskatchewan. MN-S and its citizens will determine what their child welfare law, governance structure, policy and service systems will be – including how they will be developed and implemented. This includes what the pace, scope, and implementation of services will be over time.

In sum, the Decision will assist in providing agency to Indigenous, Inuit, and Métis people to control Child and Family Services for their communities. For Saskatchewan, MN-S assumes jurisdiction over their registered citizens and may seek to expand their role into other areas of justice in the future.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

 

About the Author

Kristian St. Onge is a Student at Law at Robertson Stromberg LLP. He received his Juris Doctor in 2023 and holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree in Finance with distinction from Edward’s School of Business at the University of Saskatchewan.

Related News and Articles

Do you need a development permit?

Land is zoned to regulate development, ensure public health and safety, and promote the general welfare of the community. The Planning and Development Act (the “PDA”) gives local governing bodies the authority to oversee the planning process. Zoning bylaws dictate the...

read more

Protecting Estate Inheritances from Family Law Claims

Most parents intend to leave at least a portion of their estates to their children. What some parents may not realize is that the inheritance they leave their children could turn into “divisible family property” down the road in the event a child’s spousal...

read more

Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Hunt v Hunt, 2023 SKKB 190

The recent Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision in Hunt v Hunt, 2023 SKKB 190 confronted a rather unique circumstance. The question was whether an executor who has renounced her right to probate an estate, can later rescind that renunciation.

In the situation in Hunt, the Court concluded that such renunciation could be rescinded, as no probate had yet been issued in this Estate.

Factual background:

The factual background was summarized as follows:

  1. Gwendolyn Kathleen Hunt (”Gwendolyn”) died on October 12, 2019;
  2. In her Last Will and Testament executed on December 29, 2014 (“Will”), Gwendolyn appointed her two children—Rayna Brandy Hunt, and Cory Robin Hunt—as co-executors of her estate;
  3. Rayna averred that she did not see a copy of the Will until April 2020, six months following the death of her mother. It was then Rayna allegedly first learned Gwendolyn had appointed her as a co-executor of the Estate. Cory disputed this, and said that he gave Rayna a copy of the Will at the funeral home in October 2019, and Rayna then balked and said Cody would have to handle the Estate;
  4. In April 2020, Rayna executed a renunciation, but it was not in the proper form;
  5. In January 2021, Rayna executed a renunciation which was, this time, in the proper form under Rule 16-16(2) of The King’s Bench Rules;
  6. In April 2021, Rayna later however decided that she did in fact wish to administer the Estate. She came to this conclusion before any grant of probate had issued in this Estate;
  7. Rayna said that she came to this new conclusion, as Cory had not been diligent in managing Gwendolyn’s Estate, and Rayna now desires to be actively and fully involved in the Estate’s
Issue:

The issue before the Court was whether Rayna could lawfully rescind her renunciation.

Findings by the Court:

The Court decided that Rayna could in fact rescind her renunciation. In doing so, the Court examined the below issues.

What is the law governing the renunciation of probate:

There are formal requirements which must be complied with for a renunciation to be effective. There are also certain common law principles relevant to when such a renunciation may be rescinded.

Rule 16-16(2) of The King’s Bench Rules deals with renunciation. It states:

16-16…

(2)        If an executor does not apply for a grant, the executor shall renounce in Form 16-16.

Section 12 of The Administration of Estates Act, SS 1998, c A-4.1 sets out the legal consequences flowing from a renunciation of probate. Subsection 12(a) provides the below:

Renouncing probate

12 Where a person who is named as an executor by a will renounces probate of the will:

(a) the person’s rights with respect to the executorship and any trusteeship pursuant to the will cease; and

When can an executor rescind their renunciation?

There are a few Canadian decisions which discuss when an executor can properly rescind a renunciation.

For example, the Court in Hunt cited the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in Re MacIssac and MacDonald, (1983), 1983 CanLII 2835 (NS CA), 148 DLR (3d) 553 (NS CA), for the proposition that after letters probate are granted, an executor may be permitted to renounce only if it is shown that to do so “was in the best interests of the estate and all those interested therein”.

However, the Court in MacIssac had made clear that there was no outright prohibition on allowing an executor to rescind a renunciation.

Decision of the Court in Hunt:

The Court held that, as no probate had been made, the law was clear that it was permissible for an executor to rescind an earlier renunciation.

The Court held that Rayna could rescind her renunciation:

[35]             Accordingly, I am persuaded that Rayna’s request to rescind her renunciation of probate executed on January 30, 2020, should be granted. I would note as well that allowing Rayna to continue as a co-executor of Gwendolyn’s estate accords with her mother’s wishes as set out in the Will.

[39]            Accordingly, for these reasons, I direct that Rayna’s renunciation of probate executed on January 30, 2020 is rescinded. As co-executors, the parties should now move with reasonable dispatch to apply for letters probate respecting Gwendolyn’s estate.

The Court made no order as to costs. The Court found that each party had acted reasonably in placing this uncertain situation to the Court for clarity. The Court held that each party was to bear his or her own costs.

Conclusion:

Situations in which executors renounce are not extremely common. Thus, situations of rescinding a renunciation are even less common. That said, the guidance in Hunt is of interest to estate practitioners. It offers a lesson that if an executor renounces, but later has a change of heart, the executor may well be able to rescind that renunciation if probate has not issued, and there have not been interim developments which make it impractical to now rescind the renunciation.

The situation would be different in another factual scenario. If much time had passed after a renunciation, and another executor had stepped into the role and performed various actions in that office, it would be far less likely that a Court would allow a renunciation to be withdrawn.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Whether it’s personal or business, we handle cases ranging from wills to overseeing complex business deals, and everything in between. Our success comes as a result of our collective effort. Combining the experience of your lawyer together with the resources of our team, you can put your trust in us to handle your case with confidence.

Articles & Research