Tag Archives: Indian Act

Williams Lake First Nation v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2021 FCA 30

Posted on by

Appeal remitted back to the Specific Claims Tribunal. The Federal Court of Appeal determined that the tribunal was unreasonable in their assessment of the Crown’s fiduciary duty owed towards the appellant First Nation. The tribunal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to applicable common law precedents. This was the result of failing to consider other less invasive and viable options in fulfillment of the Crown’s obligation of minimal impairment, where the taking or expropriation of reserve land is undertaken for a public purpose.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

This claim is rooted in the sale of 4.37 acres of land to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company in 1914-1915. It occurred in the grander context of British Columbia’s belated efforts to set aside reserve lands for British Columbia’s Indigenous peoples. Central to this claim is the historical backdrop in which the events unfolded and are imperative to the analysis of this case.

At the Specific Claims Tribunal [“SCT”], Williams Lake First Nation had contended that the lands had been wrongfully transferred, or alternatively, that the Crown had breached their fiduciary duty owed to the Band in respect to this transfer of land. The SCT determined that the Band’s specific claim was unfounded. Williams Lake contended that the determination made by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wewaykum was non-binding obiter, and that the application is limited to its fact, or needs to be revisited to apply to the present decision. The SCT rejected this. The SCT turned to the applicable legislation, determining that while the provisional nature of the land did implicate the application of some legislation, that ultimately, the BC Land Act, 1911 enabled the province to grant Crown land for railway purposes, regardless of whether the lands had been reserved under the Indian Act. Lastly, the SCT considered whether the Crown had discharged of their fiduciary duty, and focused their analysis on the monetary compensation, and not the unheeded wish of land in lieu of monetary compensation.

The Federal Court of Appeal determined that Williams Lake appeal must succeed, insofar that the SCT was unreasonable as they “failed to give adequate consideration to the principles established in the applicable common law precedents governing the scope of the Crown’s fiduciary duties to Indigenous peoples in respect of reserve lands”. All that was required for the construction of a canal over reserve lands was the grant of an easement, and that the Aboriginal interest must be preserved to the greatest extent practicable to preserve the taxation jurisdiction of the band (Osoyoos Indian Band v Oliver (Town), 2001 SCC 85). On this vein of analysis, the Federal Court of Appeal cites extensive precedent in line with this principle of minimal impairment, and the failure of the SCT to reach a similar conclusion to similar circumstances in the past. Moreover, the Court finds that the SCT failed to consider such options as an easement, versus a grant in fee simple. The Court determines that the matter is best remitted back to the expertise of the SCT for redetermination.

Iskatewizaagegan No 39 Independent First Nation v Winnipeg (City), 2021 ONSC 1209

Posted on by

Ontario’s motion is dismissed. Ontario moved for an Order to strike out Iskatewizaagegan’s Amended Statement of Claim claiming that it is plain and obvious that Iskatewizaagegan pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action for breach of a sui generis or an ad hoc fiduciary duty. The Court finds that it is not plain and obvious that Iskatewizaagegan does not have a tenable cause of action based on a sui generis fiduciary duty or an ad hoc fiduciary duty.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

The City of Winnipeg, Manitoba [“Winnipeg”] extracts its drinking water from Shoal Lake, which is located predominantly in Ontario, but also Manitoba. Shoal Lake has been extracted for this purpose for over 100 years but has not paid anything to the Plaintiff, the Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation [“Iskatewizaagegan”]. Winnipeg is being sued by Iskatewizaagegan for compensation for injurious affection, with damages claimed at $500 million. Iskatewizaagegan also sues the Province of Ontario, for breach of fiduciary duty.

Iskatewizaagegan pleads two distinct theories of Crown liability for breach of fiduciary duty: 1) a sui generis fiduciary duty based on the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown; and 2) an ad hoc fiduciary duty. It relies on a 1913 Order in Council along with antecedent Royal Proclamations and Treaties and sequent legislation enacted by Ontario.

In this matter, Ontario moves for an Order to strike out Iskatewizaagegan’s Amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend and to dismiss the action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Ontario states that it is plain and obvious that Iskatewizaagegan pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action for breach of a sui generis or an ad hoc fiduciary duty. Ontario’s action is dismissed.

The people of Iskatewizaagegan are Anishinaabe. They are a distinct Aboriginal society, a recognized Band under the Indian Act, and an Aboriginal people within the meaning of s 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Shoal Lake is a part of the cultural identity of Iskatewizaagegan and its people. Since time immemorial, the Anishinaabe have used the waters of Shoal Lake and the surrounding land for survival. Iskatewizaagegan’s culture is coextensive with Shoal Lake and the surrounding land. The transmission of Anishinaabe teachings, traditions, and values to future generations takes place and continues to take place at Shoal Lake.

Common law real property concepts do not apply to Aboriginal lands or to reserves. Aboriginal title and interest in reserves are communal sui generis interests in land that are rights of use and occupation that are distinct from common law proprietary interests. An Aboriginal interest in land will generally have an important cultural component that reflects the relationship between an Aboriginal community and the land. The Aboriginal interest in land is a sui generis independent beneficial legal ownership interest that burdens the Crown’s underlying title, which is not a beneficial ownership interest and which may rather give rise to a fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown.

Iskatewizaagegan is a beneficiary of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and was ratified by assembled Indigenous Nations by the Treaty of Niagara 1764. In the summer of 1764, representatives of the Crown and approximately 24 First Nations, met at Niagara. The lengthy discussions lead to the Treaty of Niagara 1764, which was recorded in wampum. The Crown does not recognize the Treaty of Niagara 1764 as substantively altering the legal effects of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In contrast, First Nations assert that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 must be understood together with the Treaty of Niagara 1764 and so understood the Royal Proclamation of 1763 constitutes a recognition of Indigenous sovereignty.

In 1873, Iskatewizaagegan entered into Treaty No 3 with the Crown. The reserve of Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 adjacent to Shoal Lake was established pursuant to Treaty No 3. Treaty No 3 is a pre-confederation treaty on behalf of the Dominion of Canada and Chiefs of the Ojibway. The Ojibway yielded ownership of their territory, except for certain lands reserved to them. In return, the Ojibway received annuity payments, goods, and the right to harvest the non-reserve lands surrendered by them until such time as they were taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering, or other purposes by the Government of the Dominion of Canada. Although Treaty No 3 was negotiated with the Crown in right of Canada, the promises made in Treaty No 3 are promises of the Crown. The federal Government and Ontario are responsible for fulfilling the promises of Treaty No 3 when acting within the division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867.

In exercising its jurisdiction over Treaty No 3 lands, Ontario is bound by the duties attendant on the Crown and it must exercise its powers in conformity with the honour of the Crown and the fiduciary duties that lie on the Crown in dealing with Aboriginal interests. The honour of the Crown has been a principle animating Crown conduct since at least the Royal Proclamation of 1763, through which the British asserted sovereignty over what is now Canada and assumed de facto control over land and resources previously in the control of Aboriginal peoples. The categorical fiduciary duty owed by the Crown in the Aboriginal context is sui generis. From the honour of the Crown and the Federal Government’s exclusive jurisdiction in respect of Indians under s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Crown has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to Aboriginal peoples.

Snaw-Naw-As First Nation v Canada (AG), 2021 BCCA 89

Posted on by

Application dismissed. Cowichan Tribes does not meet the criteria for a public interest intervention. It does not have a sufficiently broad representative base regardless of its size as a single First Nation, to be a public interest intervenor in the Snaw-Naw-As First Nation’s appeal regarding the status of a railway that runs through reserve lands. Cowichan’s similar litigation to the underlying appeal can be adequately presented by the appellant.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

Cowichan Tribes [“Cowichan”] seeks leave to intervene an appeal by the Snaw-Naw-As First Nation [“SFN”] concerning the status of a railway right of way that runs through the SFN reserve. The dispute underlying the appeal concerns the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island [“Railway”] and the grant of a right of way through reserve lands. Use and operations of the Railway changed and declined over time, eventually being contracted out for some freight use.

The Railway, now owned and operated by the defendant Island Corridor Foundation [“ICF”], transects 1.3 km of the plaintiff First Nation’s reserve lands in Nanoose. This strip of land is subject to a right of way in favour of ICF. SFN sought a declaration that its lands subject to the right of way were no longer being used for railway operations and purposes, and a corresponding declaration that the lands revert to the administration and control of Canada for the use and benefit of SFN as part of the SFN reserve. SFN asserted that the railway corridor was not being used for railway purposes, had been abandoned, and there was no business case for the ICF to restore and operate it. The trial judge found that there had been no formal abandonment of the railway, as ICF had not abandoned efforts to fulfill its mandate despite lack of funds, and was maintaining the railway corridor to the extent possible. In the appeal, the SFN alleges errors of law by the trial judge.

In this matter, Cowichan, a band within the meaning of the Indian Act with reserve lands in and around the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island, is a large First Nation with over 5,000 members. Similar to SFN, the Railway passes through Cowichan’s reserve lands. Cowichan is also a member of ICF. Cowichan commenced litigation in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, making similar claims to SFN. Cowichan did not advance its action, as it was waiting for the outcome of the SFN litigation. Cowichan seeks to intervene on a public interest basis to make submissions on the principles that should guide the court’s interpretation of the interests at stake in light of the character of the right of way as Indigenous lands.

Section 10(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act provides that a justice may make an order granting leave to intervene as an order incidental to an appeal. A justice’s discretion to grant intervenor status is governed by the following principles: 1) the applicant must have a direct interest in the matter; or 2) must have a public interest in a public law issue in question; and 3) can make a valuable contribution or bring a different perspective to a consideration of the issues on appeal that differs from that advanced by the parties (Halalt First Nation v British Columbia (Environment), 2012 BCCA 191).

Cowichan does not claim to have a direct interest in this appeal and acknowledges the importance of the decision as precedential value in its own case. As a proposed public interest intervenor, it must have a distinctive perspective on the interpretation of the right of way that would be of assistance to the court (Equustek Solutions). While an intervenor’s submission may support one party’s position, the intervenor’s role is not to support the position of a party but to make principled submissions on pertinent points of law (Araya v Nevsun Resources Ltd, 2017 BCCA 402). Repetition is to be avoided and the appeal must remain focused on the issues raised by the parties (Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v Canada (AG), 2012 BCCA 330; British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (AG), 2018 BCCA 282).

In consenting to Cowichan’s application, SFN submits that the trial decision did not engage the Indigenous perspective, and hearing from another First Nation at the appellate level would assist the court to understand the nuance and contours of the Indigenous perspective. Although Cowichan seeks only public interest intervention, however, its own interest in this litigation distorts the basis for this application. In assessing a proposed public interest intervenor, the court’s focus is not on the interest of the intervenor but on the court’s interest in ensuring that important points of view are not overlooked. The Court is not satisfied that Cowichan’s distinct perspective about the principles of interpretation of historical takings will be of assistance.

The broader interpretive principles can be adequately presented by SFN and Cowichan’s proposed submissions are largely duplicative of those of SFN. The focus will be the interpretation of the limiting conditions of the right of way in the context of the sui generis nature of reserve lands. In all of these circumstances, Cowichan does not meet the criteria for public interest intervention and the application is dismissed.

Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2021 SCTC 1

Posted on by
Reply

As a result of breach of Crown fiduciary duty arising in a 1905 surrender of lands, compensation due to the Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation, totalled a combined amount of $126,933,972.00. The Crown took a surrender vote in contravention of the statutory requirement that permitted only members of the Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man Bands to vote, and later accepted and acted on the surrender. Pursuant to Treaty obligations, Canada admitted that it breached its pre-surrender fiduciary obligation, which rendered the 1905 surrender of lands invalid.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

This matter is the determination of the compensation due to the Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head Lean Man First Nation [“Claimant”], as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty of the Crown [“Respondent”] in the surrender of land from Indian Reserve No. 110/111 [“Lands”]. The reserve land of the Claimant totals 46,208 acres. The Claimant is of Assiniboine, Nakoda and Stony descent. The Claimant’s ancestors adhered to Treaty 6 and Treaty 4. The Claimant is also a “band” within the meaning of the term in the Indian Act, and was established by an amalgamation of three bands.

Pursuant to Treaty obligations, the Crown set aside land for the benefit of Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man Bands with the Lands. In 1905, the Crown took a surrender of a 14,670-acre parcel. The surrendered land comprised approximately 2/3 of the reserve. The Claimant is, for the purpose of this proceeding, the successor in interest to any cause of action that may arise against the Crown as a result of the surrender.

Awards of compensation where a claim is found valid are governed by paragraph 20(1)(c) of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act [“SCTA”], which provides that the Tribunal is to award compensation “that it considers just, based on the principles of compensation applied by the courts”. Equitable compensation is a remedy where a breach of fiduciary duty is found and applies in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty with respect to a surrender of reserve land (Guerin v R, [1984] 2 SCR 335 [“Guerin”]). Where reserve land is affected by an invalid surrender, section 20(1)(g) of the SCTA requires that the Tribunal award compensation equal to the current unimproved market value [“CUMV”] of the subject lands. The Tribunal must also, under section 20(1)(h) of the SCTA, award compensation equal to the value of the loss of use [“LOU”] of the lands, brought forward to the present value of the loss.

Although the agreement did not describe the events and actions that breached Crown fiduciary duty, the evidence introduced in the compensation phase of the proceeding reveals that the Crown took a surrender vote in contravention of the statutory requirement that permitted only members of the Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man Bands to vote, and later accepted and acted on the surrender. This was, from the outset, a breach of the duty of ordinary prudence. This breach occurred within a Treaty relationship, with respect to a Treaty reserve, and the breach led directly to the permanent alienation of Treaty reserve land from the Claimant.

The evidence was for the most part comprised of filed expert reports, their respective reliance documents, and the testimony of the authors on direct and cross examination. The expert reports addressed the historical context of the breach, the CUMV of the Claim Lands, LOU models describing foregone revenues from the Claim Lands from 1905 to present, and present valuation of foregone revenues.

Equitable compensation “attempts to restore to the plaintiff what has been lost as a result of the breach; i.e. the plaintiff’s lost opportunity” (Canson Enterprises Ltd v Boughton & Co, [1991] 3 SCR 534 [“Canson”]). The underlying policies that guide the assessment of equitable compensation in this claim include restitution (Guerin; Canson), reconciliation (SCTA), deterrence (Canson), fairness, and proportionality (Hodgkinson v Simms, [1994] 3 SCR 377). Equitable compensation is assessed at the time of trial, not the date of the breach. Therefore, the assessment is of the loss at present, with all losses represented by a single award. There is a common sense connection between the loss of use of the land and the loss of revenue that may have been paid into the Claimant’s coffers if the land had been leased out to farmers.

At all relevant times, the Indian Act applied to the Crown’s management of the Claimant’s funds. If the land had been surrendered for leasing, the reality would be that lease revenue would have been deposited in the Band Trust Account. The Tribunal adopted the Band Trust Account rate. Revenue from leasing would if in fact received be deposited in the Band Trust Account, and would earn interest at the rate set annually on such funds, compounded annually. The Tribunal determined CUMV of $15,500,000.00, effective September 21, 2017. The Tribunal assessed the present value of loss of use to December 31, 2019 at $111,433,972.00. This amount is net of the payments made by the Crown to the Claimant in respect of the Claim Lands from 1906 to 1956. The combined amount awarded for CUMV and LOU, subject to adjustment, is $126,933,972.00.

Bangloy v Canada (AG), 2021 FC 60

Posted on by
Reply

Application dismissed. An Indigenous family alleged that their education benefits were denied as retaliation for previous complaints the family had lodged against Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and for discrimination based on race, or national or ethnic origin.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

Thirty years ago, Ms. Bangloy’s mother requested from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada’s [“INAC”] predecessor, Indian Affairs and Northern Development [“IAND”],  reimbursements of Ms. Bangloy’s tuition fees at a private school in British Columbia. The family argued that the costs were reimbursable under the terms of Treaty 11. IAND’s position was that education expenses could be claimed under the Indian Act, but only for children living on reserve, which Ms. Bangloy was not. The Court sided with IAND, finding that Treaty 11’s terms were confined to the geographical area of the treaty (Beattie v Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1998] 1 FC 104, [“Beattie”]).

This matter deals with the decisions arising from a human rights complaint initiated by Ms. Bangloy and her family. The family launched the complaint after alleging discrimination on the basis of race or national or ethnic origin by INAC for their failure to provide Ms. Bangloy and her children with information regarding education benefits. They also maintained that INAC denied them these education benefits in question as retaliation for previous complaints of discrimination the family had lodged against INAC in Beattie.

The Tribunal found that there was no connection between INAC’s alleged failure to provide Ms. Bangloy with information about obtaining educational benefits and her race or ethnic or national origin. Therefore, she had not made out a claim of discrimination. With regard to the education funding issue in general, the Tribunal found that the same family was raising the same issue that had already been decided by the Federal Court in Beattie. In respect of the complaints of retaliation, the Tribunal found that the existence of a previous complaint was not a factor that influenced INAC’s alleged failure to provide education benefits. Therefore, there was no retaliation involved.

Ms. Bangloy’s application for judicial review required the Court to consider the Tribunal’s conclusions and whether or not they were reasonable. The Court found that the Tribunal’s conclusions that Ms. Bangloy had not made out a claim of discrimination in respect of annuity payments or information about educational benefits was reasonable given the absence of evidence of a connection between INAC’s position and Ms. Bangloy’s race, or national or ethnic origin. The Court concluded that the Tribunal reasonably found that the issue of entitlement to education benefits had already been decided by the Federal Court in Beattie. The Tribunal reasonably concluded that INAC’s conduct was not retaliatory. The Court dismissed this application for judicial review.

Johnson v Canada (Registrar, Indian Register), 2020 BCSC 1955

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal stayed. The appellant appealed what they interpreted as a decision by the Registrar of the Indian Register. The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it is premature given the statutory requirements of the Indian Act have yet to be met. Specifically, the nature of a response made by the Registrar was not a “decision” capable of being appealed until it is “protested” and the statutory proceeding is concluded.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The appellant is a status Indian and member of Sechelt Indian Band, a band within the meaning of the Indian Act. In 2017, the appellant requested that the Registrar transfer him from the Sechelt Band List to the Semiahmoo Band List, as he believes he is entitled to membership in the Semiahmoo Indian Band [“Semiahmoo”].

The Department of Indigenous Services [“Department”] maintains the Semiahmoo Band List as Semiahmoo does not maintain its own membership code. Section 11 of the Indian Act sets out the membership rules for a band list maintained by the Department. Section 12(b) of the Act provides that, within certain limits, a person who is a member of another band is entitled to have their name entered in the Department band list if the council of the admitting band consents.

In 2018, the Registrar responded to the appellant’s transfer request, stating that the request could not be processed without receiving a Band Council Resolution [“BCR”] from the Semiahmoo Band Council. A separate letter was sent by the Registrar to the Band Council of Semiahmoo requesting a BCR accepting the appellant into the band’s membership. The appellant argued that a BCR from Semiahmoo was not required under s 11 of the Indian Act and that s 12(b), which requires band council consent to adding a band member, had no application.

The Registrar then advised the appellant that the Department’s position was that s 12 applied to all band transfers. The appellant sought judicial review in the Federal Court, but that was discontinued as it is this Court that has the necessary jurisdiction. The appellant advised the respondent he would pursue a protest under s 14.2 of the Indian Act. Section 14.2 allows for a protest to be made respecting the inclusion or addition of the name of a person or their omission or deletion of their name from the Indian Register or a band list maintained by the Department. The Registrar responded she would consent to a 90-day investigation period “once all necessary documents were filed”. The appellant agreed and in 2019, sent the documents to a computer link provided [“Protest”].

Subsequently, the Registrar informed the appellant that she was unable to accept the Protest as valid. She stated the Registrar’s original decision to add the name of the appellant to Sechelt First Nation registry was rendered prior to September 4, 1951 and therefore the Protest was out of time. Her earlier response did not constitute a “decision” but was a request for evidence, therefore it could not be protested. She also confirmed the Department’s position was that Semiahmoo consent was required for all band transfers.

This application concerns whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal at this time. The Indian Act sets out the statutory framework that applies to a dispute of a “first-level” Indian Registrar decision. Once such a decision is made, a party is statutorily entitled to protest the decision to the Indian Registrar. Upon receipt of a valid protest, the Registrar investigates and renders a final and conclusive decision. It is from that decision an appeal to this Court may be taken, not earlier.

The Registrar stated she could not accept the Protest as a valid protest, noting that the request for more evidence was not a decision or a denial of the application but merely a request for evidence, including the Semiahmoo BCR. The Indian Act provides a process to determine band status. As a complete code, the Indian Act must be complied with before it can be appealed (Baptiste v Canada (Registrar of Indian & Northern Affairs), 2000 SKQB 296). The Registrar is the “master of its own procedure” and can solicit information as they see fit in conducting the investigation.

The Court is satisfied that the earlier Registrar’s responses are not “decisions” as described by the appellant. The letter in 2018 did not make a decision as no BCR had been provided from Semiahmoo. It requested that it be provided. Nor did the letter in 2019 make a decision under s 14.2 of the Indian Act. Given the expiration of time from the 1951 decision, and that the 2018 response was neither a decision nor a denial but rather a request for information, the Protest of that letter was not a valid protest. That right to protest requires that the individual is added, omitted or deleted from an Indian Register or Band List.

In other words, a determination has been made. In this instance that did not occur until 2019, when the Registrar concluded that the appellant was not entitled to be a member of the Semiahmoo Band pursuant to s 11 of the Indian Act. As a result, the right to protest arises. The appellant was advised of that right, but has chosen not to do so. The right of appeal arises after the Registrar has ruled on a protest. This Court does not, at this time, have jurisdiction as the appeal is premature. The appeal is stayed.

Okanagan Indian Band v Johnston, 2020 BCSC 1749

Posted on by
Reply

The Court granted a one-year stay against the Band’s application for summary trial against a former member in relation to an interest in reserve land her late aunt bequeathed to her. The stay will give the defendant time to appeal the rejection of her membership application in another proceeding, although she will have other hurdles to surmount beyond membership before she can obtain a legal interest in the lot.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The defendant, Marilyn Johnston, was a former member of the plaintiff, Okanagan Indian Band [“OKIB”] but is not a present member. Currently, she is a registered Indian of the Nak’azdli Whut’en Indian Band in Fort St. James, B.C. Ms. Johnston was bequeathed property on the reserve from her aunt who died in 2013. The plaintiff, the OKIB, is a band within the meaning of the Indian Act, and is the beneficiary of six reserves set aside for its use and benefit by the federal Crown pursuant to s 18 of the Indian Act. Okanagan Reserve No. 1 is one of the reserves set aside for the OKIB. Section 50 of the Indian Act prevents Ms. Johnston from inheriting her aunt’s property. The OKIB says that she must therefore vacate the property and Okanagan Reserve No. 1 [“Reserve”].

Ms. Johnston applied to transfer her membership back to the OKIB, and has been taking steps since then to reinstate her membership in the OKIB. She originally transferred her band membership from the OKIB in 1988 to enhance her credibility and trust with the community members she worked with in the victim services program. She had moved to that area in approximately 1976 and worked there in the social service sector. It was always the defendant’s intention to return from the Nak’azdli Whut’en Indian Band to the OKIB, as she has extensive ties to the Reserve.

When the defendant first contacted the OKIB in 2002 to transfer her membership, she was advised that the OKIB was in the process of adopting a new band membership transfer policy. OKIB said that it would process her application and she would be registered as a member. An internal band memo in 2012 stated that the defendant “has fulfilled all the requirements to apply for transfer to” the OKIB. It resolved that the defendant “has been accepted into the membership” of the OKIB, however, the transfer was not processed.

There is an issue between the parties as to whether the membership requirement in s 50 should be interpreted as being a member of the band at the date of the testator’s death, or whether it is retrospective and can be cured by membership granted after the date of death of the testator. The usual process under s 50(2) of the Indian Act where a beneficiary is unable to inherit the lands is for the lands to be sold to a band member and the proceeds of the sale provided to the beneficiary. Should the lands not sell, the lands would revert to the OKIB pursuant to s 50(3).

In 2019, the OKIB reconsidered the defendant’s application, but denied the defendant’s application for membership on the basis that she displayed aggressive and threatening behaviour to the OKIB staff and guests and that she would not make a positive contribution to the community. The defendant says she did not commit the behaviour or acts alleged and that there is no reasonable basis to deny her membership. The defendant appealed the OKIB Band Council decision to deny her membership with a formal application to the Protest Unit of ISC pursuant to the OKIB’s Band Membership Transfer Policy and s 14.2(1) of the Indian Act [“Protest”].

The Protest was sent by registered mail and accepted. The defendant has not yet received a reply. The basis for the Protest is that the decision to deny the transfer of membership to the OKIB was made without proper consultation and was significantly delayed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed this Notice of Application. The defendant filed her application seeking a stay of proceedings to permit the membership process to complete, by way of appeal if necessary.

The Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a temporary stay in a proceeding before it (Law and Equity Act, s 8(2); RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1994] 1 SCR 311 [“RJR-MacDonald”]. There is a serious question to be determined (RJR-MacDonald). In the Court’s view, there is an intrinsic link between the membership application issue and the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. In the event that she becomes a member, there will likely be the two hurdles identified by the plaintiff, the retrospectivity of the operation of s 50, and the permission of the Minister pursuant to s 49. Irreparable harm would be occasioned to Ms. Johnston if the stay was refused. The second branch of the test is met by the defendant (Dixon v Morgan, 2020 BCCA 200).

In considering the balance of convenience, it is important to note that the defendant first applied to OKIB for a transfer back of her membership in 2002. The decision denying the application was made in 2019. In the intervening time, Ms. Johnston returned to live with her aunt in 2009, and her aunt died in 2013. Internal band documents indicate that in 2012 there was no impediment to approving the membership application. There were many attempts made by Ms. Johnston to communicate with OKIB and further her application throughout the years from 2002 to 2019. The lack of certainty of the future of the Lots lies at the feet of OKIB as a result of their delays. The prejudice to the defendant is far greater than that to the OKIB (RJR-MacDonald). The stay is granted with the length of one year.

Bruno v Samson Cree Nation, 2020 ABQB 504

Posted on by
Reply

The Court certified a class action against the Samson Cree Nation for members from whom payment of per capita distributions, special pays, and interest were withheld during litigation and disputes over members added by virtue of Bill C-31 in 1987. The majority of common issues were approved as sought, or as modified by the Court or agreed to by counsel, and can proceed to trial. 

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

For most of its history, the Indian Act based entitlement to Registered Indian status and band membership on descent through the male parent. This system of eligibility for Indian registration based on descent through the male line was in effect until Bill C-31 was passed in 1985, in response to the equality commands of the Charter. Women who lost their Registered Indian status before 1985 for “marrying out” were restored to status by Bill C-31. These women, and any children they had with their non-Indian husbands, could be registered as Indians pursuant to s 6 of the Indian Act, enacted by Bill C-31.

Before Bill C-31, the Government of Canada maintained all Band lists, and determined Band eligibility on the basis of its statutory and administrative rules about parentage and marriage. After Bill C-31, this dual role for Canada continued with respect to many Bands. However, Bill C-31 also gave Bands the option of taking control of their membership by establishing their own membership codes.

The Plaintiff, Bonnie Lee Bruno [“Bruno”], is a member of the Samson Cree Nation [“Nation”]. Her name was added to the Band List of the Nation maintained by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [“Minister”], under the provisions of Bill C-31. Previously enfranchised Indian women and their children became members of Indian Bands on lists administered by the Minister, unless First Nations developed band membership rules approved by the Minister on or before June 28, 1987. The Court found that, on the unchallenged evidence before it, that this was not done in this matter, thus giving primacy to the list maintained by the Minister on which the Plaintiff, and allegedly others in the class, had status effective June 29, 1987. 233 individuals were added as at that date.

Prior to the passage of Bill C-31, there was considerable controversy within many First Nations over, among other things, questions over whether the women who had “married out” should be accepted back into the community and as Band members. After Bill C-31 came into effect, there were numerous challenges before the courts regarding Band membership and the equality rights issues raised by the history of enfranchisement and the attempted solution of Bill C-31.

This class proceeding relates to a claim of class members from whom, after they were added to the Band List of the Samson Cree Nation [“Nation”] by virtue of Bill C-31, the Nation withheld payment of per capita distributions and Special Pays, and interest, from 1988 to 1995 per the Plaintiff, and lesser or greater time periods as to other class members. Beginning in June 1987, the Plaintiff and other individuals’ names were entered onto the Samson Nation Band List maintained by the Minister pursuant to Bill C-31, but that the Class Plaintiffs only became members of Samson Nation about 1995 when Samson recognized and admitted them as members of the Samson Nation.

The first criterion for certification is that the plaintiff’s pleading discloses a cause(s) of action. No evidence is required, but rather the facts, as pleaded, are assumed to be true (Hunt v Carey Canada, [1990] 2 SCR 959). The pleading is to be read generously (Cloud v Canada (2004), 73 OR (3d) 401 (CA)). The standard test for unjust enrichment is: an enrichment of the defendant; a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff; and the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment (Garland v Consumers’ Gas Co, [2004] 1 SCR 629).

At this stage, the Plaintiff merely needs to allege an arguable cause of action, which she has done. Proof of the allegation is for trial. The Court finds that a cause of action for unjust enrichment has been established for the purpose of certification. It is determined that this is an appropriate case to proceed by way of a class proceeding, and the majority of 16 common issues and 4 subclass common issues are approved as sought, or, in some cases, with modification.

Linklater v Thunderchild First Nation, 2020 FC 899

Posted on by
Reply

The Thunderchild First Nation Government is enjoined from continuing with and holding a by-election for Headman in order to fill the vacant position left by the removal of the Applicant, until the determination of his application for judicial review or further Order of the Court.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The Applicant, Mr. Linklater, was elected Headman on the Thunderchild First Nation Council in late 2018. He was required to reside on Thunderchild First Nation reserve lands or Treaty Land Entitlement lands, or to move there within 30 days of the election (Thunderchild First Nation Election Act [“Election Act”]). Mr. Linklater considers this residency requirement to be contrary to s 15 of the Charter since it represents an unjustified violation of his right to equality as a citizen of a First Nation living off reserve. He also considers it to be a remnant of colonial structures, and of similar discriminatory provisions once in force in provisions of the Indian Act that were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada (Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203 [“Corbiere”]).

In 2019, a citizen of Thunderchild First Nation, asked the Thunderchild First Nation Government to remove Mr. Linklater from his position for failure to meet the residency requirement. It responded that it had no authority to do so because it also considered the residency requirement to be contrary to the Charter. Along with another citizen of Thunderchild First Nation, applications were brought to the Thunderchild First Nation Appeal Tribunal [“Tribunal”] to have Mr. Linklater removed from his position. Among other arguments, it was noted that a 2019 referendum in Thunderchild First Nation proposing various amendments to the Election Act, including the removal of the residency restriction, had not passed.

In 2020, the Tribunal issued a decision removing Mr. Linklater from his position for failure to meet the residency requirement. In its decision, the Tribunal decided it did not have jurisdiction under the Thunderchild First Nation Appeal Tribunal Act [“Tribunal Act”] to strike sections of the Election Act because they violate the Charter. It therefore did not address Mr. Linklater’s Charter arguments. The Tribunal ordered that a by-election be held as soon as possible to fill the position vacated by its removal of Mr. Linklater. Mr. Linklater has challenged the Tribunal’s decision on the application for judicial review. He alleges that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to decide his Charter arguments, and that it should have decided that the residency requirement was unconstitutional. In this motion, Mr. Linklater seeks an injunction stopping the by-election until his application for judicial review can be heard and decided.

This Court orders that the by-election to fill the vacant seat for Headman on the Thunderchild First Nation Council be halted while Mr. Linklater’s Charter challenge to his removal from that seat is before the Court. This Court should not lightly interfere with elections directed by First Nations governments and tribunals. There is significant consideration given, however, to the fact that Mr. Linklater’s request is not opposed by either the Thunderchild First Nation Government or those who requested his removal. There is no other Thunderchild First Nation decision-maker who can grant the relief sought. This order does not grant Mr. Linklater’s challenge to his removal, nor does it reinstate him in his role as Headman, either temporarily or permanently. This order only seeks to avoid the harm that would arise from someone else being elected Headman while the question of Mr. Linklater’s removal remains outstanding.

This Court has confirmed that the Applicant has met the three-part test that applies to injunctions seeking to halt Indigenous elections (RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1994] 1 SCR 311; Awashish v Conseil des Atikamekw d’Opitciwan, 2019 FC 1131). Mr. Linklater has already lost his seat. He does not on this motion seek reinstatement; he seeks that remedy among others on the underlying application for judicial review. However, if another Headman is elected to that seat, Mr. Linklater may be excluded from acting as Headman until the next election in late 2022, regardless of the outcome of this application. This would amount to irreparable harm resulting from the by-election itself, over and above any harm already incurred as a result of the order removing him from his seat as Headman.

The balance of convenience favours granting the requested injunction. The particular harm to Mr. Linklater if the injunction is not granted is significant. The broader interests of self-governance and democratic principles are of fundamental importance, but are attenuated in the particular circumstances of this case.

Buck v Canada (AG), 2020 FC 769

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Court dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction against the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to prevent the execution of a proposed specific claim settlement with the Enoch Cree Nation until a final determination of an action against Enoch and the Crown. The Court held that it has no statutory jurisdiction to issue an interlocutory injunction against the federal Crown in relation to an action as opposed to an application for judicial review. The Court also held that it would not have issued an injunction even if it had the jurisdiction to do so, finding no irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and that the balance of convenience favours reconciliation through implementation of the settlement agreement.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

 

Enoch is a First Nation and a band as defined in s 2(1) of the Indian Act, with over 2200 members. In 1942, Canada leased a portion of Enoch Reserve lands, to the Department of Munitions and Supply [“DMS”] for use as a practice bombing range.

In 2008, Canada enacted the Specific Claims Tribunal Act pursuant to which First Nations could file specific claims with the Tribunal as specified therein. A specific claim submitted by a First Nation can be accepted for negotiation by Canada. The negotiation and settlement of a specific claim avoids recourse to adjudication before the Specific Claims Tribunal. The Specific Claims Policy establishes the principles and process for resolving specific claims through negotiation and that such claims can only be submitted by a First Nation and only First Nations can file specific claims with the Tribunal.

Enoch submitted a specific claim in respect of the use by DND of Enoch Reserve lands as a bombing range [“Enoch Specific Claim”]. The Enoch Specific Claim alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and breaches of the 1927 Indian Act. Canada and Enoch reached mutual agreement as to the settlement of the Enoch Specific Claim that included the proposal of a significant payment by Canada to Enoch in full and final settlement of the Enoch Specific Claim [“Proposed Settlement Agreement”]. In 2020, Enoch held a ratification vote at which the large majority of Band members who voted did so in favour of accepting the Proposed Settlement Agreement, and subsequently passed a Band Council Resolution accepting the Proposed Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiffs are members of Enoch. In 2019, the Minister received a letter stating the Enoch Specific Claim included land held by the McGillis family by way of a Certificate of Possession [“CP”]. Amongst other things, it stated that Enoch had recently engaged directly with the McGillis family, but despite a letter from their counsel to the Department of Justice outlining what the Plaintiffs viewed as the legal obligations of the Crown to the CP holders, there had been no direct engagement with the Crown. It is alleged that Enoch and the Crown could not proceed with the Enoch Specific Claim settlement without reaching prior agreement with the Plaintiffs as to their interests in the land held under the CP.

The Minister advised that Canada’s negotiations with Enoch were undertaken on a confidential basis, and for that reason, the Minister was unable to meet with the Plaintiffs to discuss them. However, that through the specific claims negotiations, Canada encourages First Nations elected leadership to share information about the claim with all community members. The Plaintiffs’ view is that Canada should engage directly with the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Canada continued to urge the Plaintiffs to direct their claims to Enoch.

The Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Claim in this Court, commencing an action against Canada alleging ongoing trespass caused by alleged munitions scraps on the lands that were leased to DMS for use as the bombing range, including those lands held under the CP. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Statement of Claim asserting that Canada breached its fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs with respect to the CP Lands, including by finalizing the terms of the Proposed Settlement Agreement to the prejudice of the Plaintiffs. They further alleged the tort of conversion on the basis that as holders of the CP, only they can sue for trespass, seek remediation and receive damages and that Enoch was not authorized to make the Specific Claim in relation to the CP lands.

The determinative issue is this matter is whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the requested injunctive relief. There is no underlying application for judicial review that could be the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction. There is a clear line of authority standing for the proposition that where an action is brought against the Crown, s 22(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act will, in the normal course, preclude the granting of an injunction against the Crown. This Court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction in that circumstance as its jurisdiction is determined by ss 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act, which permits it to grant injunctive relief only where the underlying proceeding is an application for judicial review.

The lack of jurisdiction of this Court to grant the motion seeking an injunction entirely disposes of the Plaintiffs’ motion. However, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it would not have granted the injunction as the Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of the three part test (R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5 [“Broadcasting”]). Although the Plaintiffs demonstrated a “serious question to be tried”, they could not succeed on the second and third branches. They did not establish that they would incur irreparable harm. In preventing the settlement and the step toward reconciliation that it represents, thereby delaying or precluding the compensation its resolution would afford to Enoch’s members collectively and individually, is not in the public interest and tips the balance of convenience in favour of Enoch and the Attorney General. The Plaintiffs would not suffer the greater harm in that event.