Indigenous status revoked for 700 Innu who are challenging Canada in court

Hundreds of members in the Innu community of Essipit are challenging Canada after the federal government revoked their Indigenous status.

Hundreds of members of the Innu community of Essipit in Quebec are challenging the Canadian government after it revoked their Indigenous status.

The 738 people involved were descendants of two women, Christine Kichera and Adelaïde Matshiragan, Innu women who lived in the late 18th century and married non-Indigenous men.

“For that reason, their descendants were not eligible for status,” said the members’ lawyer Audrey Mayrand. “It’s important for people to understand that, had the members of these associations’ ancestors been men, they would have always been status members and members of the First Nations.”

Mayrand is leading a judicial review in the hopes that her clients’ status would be reinstated.

She added that many of her clients claim the federal government did not communicate to them that they had lost their status.

“[One client] learned through their pharmacy that they were no longer covered by the federal medical insurance,” she said. “I have a client who was out hunting, came back and was told by the First Nation that his status card had been deactivated, and so people learned of this in a bit of a haphazard way, and this has really significant impacts on people’s lives.”

The government, Mayrand explained, removed the people’s status because they didn’t have enough evidence that Christine Kichera and Adelaïde Matshiragan were Innu of Essipit, which is about 250 kilometres northeast of Quebec City.

“It’s not just formalistic, but incorrect reading of the requirements to qualify as an Indian,” said Mayrand.

She added that groups submitted historic documentation supporting their ancestors’ claims, but that evidence was not addressed.

Indigenous Services Canada did not respond to a CTV News request for comment by time of publication.

Recognition after hundreds of years

Many of those whose status was revoked had ancestors who lived without recognition of their status for centuries, as the Indian Act removed status from Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men.

In 1985, Bill C-31 amended the act to grant women their status again.

Canada further expanded on this in 2019 with Bill S-3, which addressed “known sex-based inequities in registration” and expanded status to those women’s descendants.

“While all known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions have now been eliminated, the Government of Canada continues to collaborate with First Nations and other partners to address the remaining inequities in registration,” the government said.

Mayrand said many of Kichera and Matshiragan’s descendants live near Essipit, have married people from the community, and were elated when they s received their status after S-3.

“It was really a recognition and the resolution of a long-standing injustice,” she said. “These were families that had always known that they were Indigenous and Innu, but that it wasn’t recognized by law, and that they therefore had all these limitations on what they could do and how they could live.”

Essipit Council Chief Martin Dufour said the council was informed in February that the Office of the Registrar of Indians was reviewing some community members’ statuses.

“This process affects two family branches and involves a significant number of members of our community,” Dufour said in a statement. “In light of this situation, we would first like to state that we deeply understand the concerns of those affected. This review raises significant issues of identity, humanity and emotion.”

After being granted status, Mayrand explained, some people started businesses using Indigenous funding, built homes and cabins on territory and began benefiting from rights guaranteed under status recognition.

“No one has any real prospect of recovering the investments, not to mention, obviously, the attachment that people have to the house that they finally were able to build for their family,” she said.

“It goes to really deep, deep questions and profoundly personal choices that people make about how they raise their families... This is really problematic, not just fundamentally in terms of revoking status, but also in the way in which it was handled.”

A third of members removed

In 2020, Statistics Canada reported 1,987 (256 in community, 1,731 off) Essipit community members.

In 2026, those numbers dropped to 1,363 (245 on reserve).

Dufour said that the council is in solidarity with the members affected, but the council is not involved in the review of their status.

“The decision to register or remove members from the band list rests exclusively with the Government of Canada and its Office of the Registrar of Indians, and the same applies to the ongoing review process,” said Dufour. “We do not intervene in the analysis of files or in administrative decisions regarding the registration of our members.”

The council said it questions how the process is being conducted, as well as the criteria for status.

“Without taking a position on whether to maintain or revoke the status of the individuals concerned, we will continue to seek clear answers from the registrar, particularly regarding the concrete effects of her decisions on social cohesion, collective identity, and the vitality of our community,” said Dufour.

Mayrand said she hopes the process is quick and the revocation is reversed.

“The allegation is, not only that it doesn’t comply with the Indian Act itself, but that it’s a Charter violation because it affects people’s life, liberty and the security of their person, affecting their home, affecting their health, and also the psychological effects on people’s identity and their sense of belonging,” she said.

“It violates the Aboriginal rights because it’s through membership in the First Nation that individuals can exercise their hunting and fishing rights, and by revoking status and depriving members of access to their rights, while a very serious debate is ongoing about their eligibility, in our view, isn’t consistent with the honour of the Crown.”