Monthly Archives: November 2018

Yahey v British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278

Posted on by
Reply

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre
Case Watch

First Nation granted stay of hearing fees for treaty litigation, until question of whether these are contrary to the Honour of the Crown can be resolved.

In the case of Yahey, the Blueberry River First Nation (BRFN) brought an application to stay hearing fees on the basis that there are unsettled legal issues surrounding the provincial hearing fee scheme. Procedurally, relief from fees can be sought either by way of a court order or an application based on undue hardship under Rule 20-5 of British Columbia’s Supreme Court Civil Rules. By way of background, this application came on the heels of an amendment to Rule 20-5 to allow for an undue hardship exemption from hearing fees. Justice Burke concluded that the stay ought to be provided.

BRFN’s position was that there are open questions as to whether it is dishonourable for the Crown to require First Nations to pay a fee to litigate their treaty rights. In addition, BRFN pointed out that conclusions from other ongoing constitutional litigation regarding the breadth of the term “undue hardship” (Cambie Surgeries Corp. v British Columbia) would bring greater clarity to its application for relief from fees. In determining whether or not a stay could be provided, Justice Burke applied the legal test set out in the case of RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General). This test requires a court to consider whether (a) there is a serious question to be tried; (b) irreparable harm will result if the stay is not granted; and (c) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay.

Justice Burke found that the application of this test favoured providing BRFN with the stay they sought. Justice Burke concluded that BRFN established there was a serious issue to be tried—that is, whether the Honour of the Crown demands Indigenous peoples to not pay a fee in order to have their constitutional rights adjudicated. This question was not addressed in Cambie Surgeries and remains unaddressed to date. Justice Burke went on to find that the irreparability of harm and balance of convenience in this case weighed in favour of providing the stay. She found BRFN would have to either allocate resources to pay the hearing fees, or bring an application for relief from paying the fees, or bring an application for relief on unsettled law. Further, she noted that if Cambie Surgeries could provide some guidance, then requiring the payment of fees would be an inefficient use of resources. Finally, Justice Burke raised a question of fairness of process. Citing RJR MacDonald, she indicated that a perception of unfairness might arise from the fact that losses associated with paying the fees prematurely might not be cured later. These factors meant that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of BRFN.

Corporation de développement économique Montagnaise c Robertson, 2017 QCCS 2736

Posted on by
Reply

A clear and unequivocal express waiver is necessary in order to waive the protection against seizure of property on reserve under section 89 of the Indian Act.

The issue in this case was whether the property of Mr. Édouard Robertson, who lives on the Mashteuiatsh territory reserve and has status under the Indian Act, could be seized by an Indigenous economic development corporation (Corporation de développement économique Montagnaise or “CDEM”) in spite of section 89 of the Indian Act. In three separate judgments, Mr. Robertson was found to owe CDEM more than $265,000 with interest and costs. He argued that because he has status under the Indian Act, his property cannot be seized by any person other than an Indian or band under the Indian Act. CDEM’s position was that by consenting to a universal movable hypothec on his business property (a form of security similar to a mortgage), Mr. Robertson waived the benefit of his rights under section 89 of the Indian Act.

Justice Bouchard found that the hypothec did not constitute a waiver of Mr. Robertson’s right to protection against seizure under section 89 of the Indian Act. As a result, the property located on the reserve could not be subject to seizure. In reviewing the case law to date, Justice Bouchard, cited a 1995 Sioui decision for the proposition that “tacit” waivers will not suffice in terms of section 89’s protection against seizure. Justice Bouchard did point out that express waivers were possible and section 89 should not be read more broadly than is necessary, particular in cases involving credit matters, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in McDiarmid Lumber Ltd v God’s Lake First Nation. Ultimately, however, Justice Bouchard concluded that in the absence of a clear and unequivocal waiver by Mr. Robertson, there could be no seizure. The language in the universal hypothec was not sufficiently clear to constitute a clear waiver and Mr. Robertson’s property could therefore not be seized.

Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director) v JR, 2018 ABPC 258

Posted on by
Reply

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, and Gladue principles inapplicable to child protection matter.

JR and AL are the parents of seven children ranging in age from nine months to nine years. Both parents have been diagnosed with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. Throughout their time spent together and apart, JR and AL suffered from multiple addictions, which aggravated domestic violence issues between them. All seven children have spent considerable time in state care due to the domestic violence and addictions suffered by their parents. The youngest children even tested positive for methamphetamines post-birth. The oldest children display severe behavioural issues and are likely to struggle in future years, thereby needing a stable and safe environment.

The applicant, Kasohkowew Child Wellness Society (KCWS), exists pursuant to a tripartite agreement between the Province of Alberta, the Government of Canada and the Samson Cree Nation. KCWS brought an application under the Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act RSA 2000 c C-12 (CYFEA), for a permanent guardianship order for all seven children and this was ultimately granted by the Court. Counsel for AL opposed the application, making submissions in favour of less invasive action based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action, and the principles set out in R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688.

With respect to UNDRIP, counsel for AL pointed to Article 7.2, which states “Indigenous individuals have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence including forcibly removing children of the group to another group (emphasis added)”. In response, the Court pointed out that KCWS is a delegated First Nations authority established under a tripartite agreement to provide child, youth and family services to Samson Cree Nation. The Court found it difficult to assume that such an authority would be at all involved in discriminating against its own people. Instead, the Court assumed that the director would only remove children and place them with non-Aboriginal foster parents as a last resort, and that the director found it in the best interests of the children to do so. The Court held that UNDRIP is aspirational and does not trump the best interests or physical and mental safety of the child.

Counsel for AL quotes several TRC Calls to Action that relate to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care. She pointed out that some of the child welfare workers directly involved with the family were not Cree or even Aboriginal. However, the TRC Calls to Action she quoted only calls for child welfare workers to be properly educated and trained in the history and subsequent impacts of the residential school system, and about the potential for Aboriginal communities and families to provide more appropriate solutions to family healing. The TRC did not say that all child welfare workers must be Aboriginal.

As for the potential applicability of R v Gladue, submissions of this type are usually in the context of criminal law cases, not child protection matters. The Court noted that the purpose of the CYFEA is not to punish parents, but to protect children and achieve what is in their best interests. In this case that would be stable, permanent and nurturing relationships and continuity of care for all seven children. As far as the negative impacts regarding the transmission of Cree culture, steps had been taken to keep the children together as much as possible. It was necessary to have the two youngest children placed in a group home, but the older five children are all together in one foster home. In terms of the preservation of the uniqueness of the children’s Aboriginal culture, heritage, spirituality and traditions, the Court was convinced that all appropriate steps were taken by KCWS to ensure these needs are met for the children.

WSÁNEĆ School Board v BC Government and Service Employees’ Union, 2017 FCA 210

Posted on by
Reply

The Doré framework is applicable when an administrative tribunal’s decision making engages the underlying principles and values of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and such decisions are to be reviewed on the same standard of reasonableness.

This case involved an application for judicial review by the WSÁNEĆ School Board (the WSB) seeking to set aside a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). Specifically, the WSB challenged a decision of the CIRB to dismiss an application from the WSB in which it sought to exclude employees teaching WSÁNEĆ language, beliefs, and culture in the SENĆOŦEN Immersion Program from the all-employee bargaining unit of the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGSEU).

The WSB argued that including the SENĆOŦEN employees in an all-employee bargaining unit would negatively impact the constitutional rights of the WSÁNEĆ First Nations to control the transmission of their language and culture, as entrenched in ss 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The WSB submitted that the Canada Labour Code must be interpreted and applied in a manner that respects these constitutional rights and takes into account the values and principles that underpin them, including the need for reconciliation. The WSB also asserted that the CIRB had breached its procedural fairness rights by failing to grant it an oral hearing. The WSB had unsuccessfully sought an oral hearing before the CIRB on the basis that this would allow for an explanation of the WSÁNEĆ beliefs and teachings in accordance with their oral traditions.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the CIRB’s decision to dismiss the application was reasonable and that the CIRB was not obligated to provide an oral hearing.

Writing for the court, Gleason JA accepted that correctness is the appropriate standard for determining whether an oral hearing is required as part of procedural fairness though he also stated that the circumstances in which a party’s procedural fairness rights may be said to be violated are narrow. With respect to the merits of the CIRB decision, Gleason JA noted that reasonableness was generally the applicable standard to CIRB decisions that interpret and apply the Canada Labour Code and held that WSB’s invocation of ss 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 did not require him to reach a different conclusion here.

The WSB did not seek to have the CIRB rule on the scope of its Aboriginal rights to control education nor did it argue that such rights brought the labour relations of the SENĆOŦEN employees outside the purview of the Code. Instead, WSB invoked principles and values enshrined in ss 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, and argued that these required the CIRB to determine that the SENĆOŦEN employees should be excluded from BCSGEU. Gleason JA found this argument to be analogous to the those advanced in Doré v Barreau du Quebec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR with respect to the need for an administrative tribunal to balance Charter values against other administrative law considerations. He accepted that the Doré framework could be applied to principles and values underlying s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Gleason JA invoked the principle that employee units should not be fractured without compelling evidence. As indicated by the CIRB, compelling evidence might include geographic factors, specific statutory provisions and the likelihood that a larger unit may not be viable. Ultimately, Gleason JA found that there was no evidence the WSB would lose their control over the way the SENĆOŦEN employers performed their duties. He also pointed out that the application may have been premature as there was no way to know whether the BCGSEU would accept terms and conditions that the WSB sought for the SENĆOŦEN employees and the WSB raised concerns about an eventual strike that were premature and theoretical in the absence of any evidence that a strike was likely.

With respect to procedural fairness, Gleason JA noted that the request for an oral history was neither clearly made nor well supported by the evidence. Moreover, he pointed out that it was well within the Court’s powers under the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations to decide the matter without an oral hearing, which the WSB knew prior to making their application.