“Where There Are Legal Rights There Are Remedies”: The Promise of Reconciliatory Remedies and the Limitations of Shot Both Sides

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

OKT partner Kevin Hille and associate Jesse Abell recently published an article in the Supreme Court Law Review, “‘Where There Are Legal Rights There Are Remedies’: The Promise of Reconciliatory Remedies and the Limitations of Shot Both Sides” (2026) 11 SCLR (3d) 323.

The article examines the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shot Both Sides v Canada, 2024 SCC 12, and how it relates to other recent Supreme Court decisions on s. 35 remedies and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

In Shot Both Sides, the Supreme Court held that limitations legislation can prevent First Nations from obtaining non-declaratory relief for a breach of Treaty claim under s. 35. However, the Court did not consider whether applying limitations legislation to s. 35 rights claims is constitutional.

The authors argue that this decision is difficult to reconcile with other recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing that “the full range of remedies” is available for s. 35 rights claims.

The authors also argue that this decision is in tension with the Supreme Court’s growing recognition of UNDRIP’s status in Canadian law. UNDRIP protects the right to effective remedies, and applying limitation periods to bar s. 35 rights claims is inconsistent with that right.

The authors suggest that until the Supreme Court addresses the constitutional applicability of limitations legislation to s. 35 rights claims, Shot Both Sides should not be read as a definitive ruling that limitation periods can always bar coercive remedies for s. 35 rights claims. It remains for future courts to grapple with these tensions.