VANCOUVER - The British Columbia Supreme Court has mandated that the Canadian government must amend the Indian Act by April 2026 to ensure it aligns with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision follows a successful legal challenge by descendants of individuals who renounced their Indian status under the law.

The court found that certain provisions of the Indian Act, which denied status to individuals with a “family history of enfranchisement,” violated the plaintiffs' Charter rights. This situation arose when parents or grandparents relinquished their status, resulting in their descendants losing access to the benefits associated with Indian status.

Lawyer Ryan Beaton, who represents the plaintiffs, noted that the ruling comes eight years after he first met Sharon Nicholas, one of the plaintiffs. Nicholas's grandfather renounced his status in 1944 to protect his children from being sent to residential schools. Beaton explained that when individuals like Nicholas's grandfather became enfranchised, their children also lost their status. Nicholas has been advocating for change for decades before taking legal action.

In addition to this ruling, a related class-action lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court, seeking damages from the Canadian government for lost benefits due to the denial of status. This class is estimated to include between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals.

Beaton expressed that the ruling has been “incredibly gratifying” for Nicholas, stating, “For her it’s been, you know, a 40-year journey to get to this point. She’s an incredible person.” He added that Nicholas brought extensive research to the case, educating him about her family’s history and the impact of the Indian Act on her family.

The case is notable because the Canadian government acknowledged that the law was not in compliance with the Charter, which allowed the plaintiffs to avoid a trial after filing their lawsuit in 2021. Beaton explained that many individuals renounced their status for various reasons, often to escape the disadvantages associated with being recognized as Indian at that time. “In those days, if you were Indian, you could not vote, you could not own certain forms of property, your kids had to go to residential school,” he said. “So to get out from those disadvantages, some people chose to renounce their Indian status.”

Beaton mentioned that while Parliament has attempted to amend the law in the past, those efforts have not been successful. He emphasized that the plaintiffs are now seeking change through the courts if legislative action does not occur. The court's ruling requires Parliament to bring the Indian Act into compliance with the Charter, which could result in a nationwide legislative solution, not just one limited to British Columbia.