Tag Archives: First Nations

Riddle v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 FC 641 [Sixties Scoop Class Action]

Posted on by
Reply

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre

This action is certified as a class proceeding. The Settlement Agreement has been approved with the modification that there is dissemination of its information to every part of Canada to ensure that every eligible person receives the payment allotted for such.

(This is the second of three consecutive Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch Blog posts regarding the Sixties Scoop Class Action judgements.)

The precedents in Brown v Canada are historical and exemplary in the understanding of cultural identity as essential to the human personality. By an order dated January 4, 2018, Riddle, White and Charlie Actions were consolidated. The Parties agree that the Settlement per approval in Brown v Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and in the action constituted in the Federal Court be consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Twenty-three class proceedings at different stages were at one time across Canada including Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Albert and British Columbia in respect of the Sixties Scoop. These actions sought “damages for the harm that was caused… by the alleged breaches of fiduciary and common law duty on the part of the Federal Crown” (Brown v Canada (AG), 2013 ONSC 5637). On February 1, 2017, the Federal Government announced its intention to initiate mediation in regards to the Sixties Scoop litigation across the country. During the mediation, a wide, all-encompassing range of comprehensive topics were discussed and negotiated.

The essential terms of the Settlement are as follows: (1) a Foundation with a mission to enable change and reconciliation as well as access to healing, wellness, commemoration and education; (2) Eligible Class Members; (3) The Compensation Scheme: Canada will not be required to pay more than $750,000,000.00. Depending on the number of Approved Claimants, each Eligible Class Member who submits a claim shall receive a compensation of a maximum $50,000; (4) The Claims Process: is intended to be simple, paper-based, cost effective, user-friendly and to minimize the burden on the applicant by a one page form; (5) Releases: The class members agree to release Canada from any and all claims that have been pleaded or could have been pleaded with respect to their placement in foster care, Crown wardship or permanent wardship, and/or adoption; (6) Opt-outs: Should 2,000 class members opt out, Canada, in its sole discretion, may decide not to proceed with the Settlement Agreement and shall have no further obligations in this regard; (7) Legal Fees: the payment of Class Counsel from a separate Fund. Class counsel further agrees to perform any additional work required on behalf of class members at no additional charge; (8) Settlement Approval: The Parties agree that the Settlement per approval in Brown v Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and in the action constituted in the Federal Court be consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

There was some objection to the quantum of legal fees. The Court agreed that the fees sought are fair and reasonable, mainly because class counsel will remain available to the claimants following the approval of the Settlement and because the requested fees are less than 10% of the overall global payment. This litigation is “historically unique” and was “inherently fraught with risk”. The Court takes into account that the claims in this class action refer to a loss of cultural identity. These cases undoubtedly pose a significant litigation risk to be assumed by Class counsel (Manuge v Canada, 2014 FC 341). The legal fees are intended to “encourage counsel to take on difficult and risky class action litigation” (Abdulrahim v Air France, 2011 ONSC 512). The parties’ commitment in the inauguration of the Settlement, is one of the reasons the result achieved was successful and were able to avoid delays and expensive costs associated with individual hearings by which to compensate class members.

It was undeniable that “bringing closure is critical” for the survivors of the Sixties Scoop. Without a settlement agreement, the risks include: (a) national certification order may not be granted; (b) a fiduciary duty may be found not to be owed, as in Ontario; (c) liability might not be established; (d) statutory limitation periods could bar many or all of the class’ claims; (e) an aggregate award of damages could be denied by the court forcing class members through lengthy and protracted individual assessment; (f) proven damages could be similar to or far less than the settlement amounts; (g) ordering reconciliation, commemorative or healing initiatives, of the nature the Foundation is tasked with, would have been outside the jurisdiction or purview of any court to order. The Court viewed the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and in the best interests of those affected by it.

Brown v. Canada (AG), 2017 ONSC 251 [Sixties Scoop Class Action]

Posted on by
Reply

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch

Motion granted for summary judgment of the certified common issue of the Sixties Scoop class action. Liability of the federal government was found in favour of the class members.

(This is the first of three consecutive Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch Blog posts regarding the Sixties Scoop Class Action judgements.)

The Court, and both parties, agree that the common issue should be summarily decided. Brown v. Canada (AG), 2010 ONSC 3095 was certified as a class proceeding. The certified common issue, which focused on the liability of Canada, was answered in favour of the class members. The class action has proceeded to the damages stage.

The Sixties Scoop happened and great harm was done. There is no dispute about the fact that thousands of Aboriginal children living on reserves in Ontario were apprehended and removed from their families by provincial child welfare authorities over the course of the class period and were placed in non-Aboriginal foster homes or adopted by non-Aboriginal parents. It was Patrick Johnson, the author of a 1983 research study on “Native Children and the Child Welfare System” that coined the name “Sixties Scoop.” He took this phrase from the words of a British Columbia child-protection worker who noted that provincial social workers “would literally scoop children from reserves on the slightest pretext.” There is uncontroverted evidence of the impact on the removed Aboriginal children. The loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The issue before the Court was whether Canada can be found liable in law for the class members’ loss of Aboriginal identity after they were placed in non-Aboriginal foster and adoptive homes.

Canada entered into the Canada-Ontario Welfare Services Agreement (“the 1965 Agreement”) in December 1, 1965 to December 31, 1984 (19 years), and is at the core of the common issue. The focus of the common issue is the action or inaction of Canada (not Ontario) and only on the time-period after the Aboriginal children had been placed in non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive homes. Therefore, the common issue asks whether Canada had and breached any fiduciary or common law duties to take reasonable steps in the post-placement period to prevent the class members’ loss of Aboriginal identity.

The class definition includes the estimated 16,000 Aboriginal children who were removed from reserves in Ontario and placed in non-Aboriginal foster homes or adoptive homes. The stated goal of the 1965 Agreement was to “make available to the Indians in the province the full range of provincial welfare programs” and also reflected Canada’s concern that the extension of the provincial laws would respect and accommodate the special culture and traditions of the First Nations peoples living on the reserves, including their children. Ontario’s undertaking to extend the provincial welfare programs as set out in section 2(1) was made “subject to (2).” Sub-section 2(2) of the Agreement said “[n]o provincial welfare program shall be extended to any Indian Band in the Province unless that Band has been consulted by Canada or jointly by Canada and by Ontario and has signified its concurrence.” This section was intended to include explanations, discussions and accommodations. It was meant to be a genuinely meaningful provision.

No Indian Bands were ever consulted before provincial child welfare services were extended to the reserves. The Court found that by failing to consult the Indian Bands, Canada breached s 2(2) of the 1965 Agreement. Nothing in s 2(2) explicitly obliged Canada to actually undertake the consultations referred, however, the undertaking to do so can be implied from the language and context of the provision. A contractual term can be implied if it is a contractual term that must have been intended by the parties and is necessary or obvious in light of the particular circumstances of the agreement. If Canada had honoured its obligation to consult the Indian Bands under s 2(2) of the 1965 Agreement, the information about the child’s Aboriginal identity and culture and the available federal benefits would have been provided years sooner. Canada failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of Aboriginal identity in the post-placement period by failing, at a minimum, to provide to both foster and adoptive parents the kind of information that was finally provided in 1980 and thereafter.

The Court found on the applicable law that Canada’s liability cannot be established under fiduciary law but can be established under the common law. In the Court’s view, s 2(2) and the obligation to consult created a common law duty of care and provided a basis in tort for the class members’ claims. The common law duty of care arose out of the fact that the 1965 Agreement is analogous to a third-party beneficiary agreement. Canada undertook the obligation to consult in order to benefit Indian Bands (and by extension, Indians living on the reserves, including children). The Indian Bands are not parties to the Agreement, but a tort duty can be imposed on Canada as a contracting party in these circumstances.

Northern Inter-Tribal Health Authority Inc. and Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation Health Services Inc. v Attorney General of Canada (Minister of Finance), 2018 FC 1180 [NITHA]

Posted on by
Reply

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch

The Federal Government has a long-standing obligation to provide health services to First Nations. The Applicants pension plans fall under federal jurisdiction.

In NITHA, the Federal Court considered whether the pension plans of the applicants, Northern Inter-Tribal Health Authority Inc. (NITHA) and Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation Health Services Inc. (PBCNHS), fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada (OSFI), argued that the pension plans fall under provincial jurisdiction, while NITHA and PBCNHS argue that they fall under federal jurisdiction. Applying the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in NIL/TU, O, the Court declared that the pension plans in question fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that a correctness standard of review was to be applied on the grounds that the dispute engaged a question of a constitutional nature. NIL/TU, O and Nation Innu Matemekush-Lac John supports that constitutional issues regarding the division of powers are to be decided on a correctness standard.

The applicable test identified as outlined by Abella J in NIL/TU, O, contains two parts. The first part is a functional test of whether the entity is engaged in a federal undertaking. This requires an inquiry into the nature, habitual activities and daily operations of the entity in question. The second part applies only if the first part is inconclusive and it requires consideration of whether provincial regulation would impair the core federal power. The Court also reiterated Abella J’s citation to Four B Manufacturing Ltd, which indicates that federal government funding does not on its own convert the operation into a federal activity.

The functional test calls for an inquiry into the nature, habitual activities and daily operations of the entity in question to determine whether it constitutes a federal undertaking. In examining the Supreme Court’s application of the functional test in NIL/TU, O, the Court highlighted Abella J’s position that the emphasis be placed on the underlying reason for the performance of the activities. The Court also echoed McLachlin CJC and Fish J’s concern in Four B Manufacturing Ltd that the test must be applied cautiously to avoid simply conflating the nature of activities with the habitual and daily operations involved in carrying out an activity.

The Court concluded that OSFI made an error by failing to consider the underlying reason for the activities. In particular, the fact that OSFI narrowly construed the purpose of the agreements governing the relationship, by referring to some recitals and excluding others which make reference to constitutional provisions, the special relationship subsisting between First Nations People and the Crown as well as important historical documents, such as Treaties 5, 6, 8 and 10, which include promises of healthcare. These treaties make it clear that the Federal Government undertook to provide health services to Indians on Indian Reserves.

On this basis, the Court granted the application for certiorari to quash OSFI’s decision. These arguments, along with a further examination of the historical treaty record, were also used to support a declaration that the provision of health services to the Indians is a century long federal undertaking made, in part, in keeping with the treaty relationship between the Applicants and the Federal Government.

Quewezance v Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations [FSIN], 2018 SKQB 313

Posted on by
Reply

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch

Application dismissed for a judicial review and a quashing of the decision to divest Mr. Quewezance as a Senator of the FSIN. The FSIN is not a governmental body and as such its decisions are not subject to judicial review as there is no freestanding right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations.

Theodore Quewezance applied for an order to have a decision to be quashed by the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations [FSIN] which had him removed him from the position as a Senator of the FSIN through judicial review. Such jurisdiction depends upon the presence of a legal right, such as a breach of a private law wrong in contract, tort or other valid cause of action, that Mr. Quewezance has made no claim. There cannot be a judicial review of a freestanding right to procedural fairness.

Judicial review, in its origin and present conceptualization, is a public law concept under which superior courts engage “in surveillance of lower tribunals” in order to ensure that these tribunals respect or adhere to the rule of law (Knox v Conservative Party of Canada). It is well established that the decisions of Indian Bands are subject to judicial review. However, the FSIN was created or established by its Convention in 1982, which was an agreement entered into among all Indian Bands, except one, within the Province of Saskatchewan. The Court agrees with how the FSIN has been described in Battlefords Tribal Council Inc. v Federation of Saskatchewan Indians Inc.: the FSIN is a political organization with undetermined legal status that is likened to a voluntary unincorporated association of the Chiefs in Saskatchewan. The FSIN represent the interests of First Nations persons in Saskatchewan based upon the principles and procedures outlined in their founding document, The Conventions Act, 1982.

By way of analogy, rural municipalities in Saskatchewan are local governments by virtue of The Municipalities Act. However, the organization Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities [SARM], formed by the Rural Municipalities to advance their collective interests, is a voluntary organization and not a governmental body. SARM’s decisions are not subject to judicial review. The Court in Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v Wall, stated that first, judicial review is limited to public decision makers, which the Judicial Committee of SARM is not, and second, there is no free-standing right to have such decisions reviewed on the basis of procedural fairness.