Tag Archives: Sixties Scoop

R v Laforge, 2020 BCSC 1269

Posted on by
Reply

The Court rejected a joint sentencing proposal of 27 months in prison followed by probation for arson related to the burning of a vehicle and a convenience store. Counsel failed to meaningfully consider the Gladue principles and the sentence itself would contribute to systemic discrimination against Indigenous people rather than amelioration. A sentence of time served in custody was imposed instead, which will now be followed by a probation order. 

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

Mr. Laforge drove his vehicle into the front window of a 7-Eleven convenience store in Salmon Arm, British Columbia. He then exited his vehicle and poured gasoline into the cab. After everyone left the store, Mr. Laforge then lit his vehicle on fire. The fire spread quickly, causing extensive damage.

Mr. Laforge had been in custody for 548 days by the date of his sentencing hearing. Both counsel gave a joint proposal for a 27-month custodial sentence plus three years of probation. Mr. Laforge has Métis heritage and has been diagnosed with a schizophrenic illness. He did not want to hurt anyone or burn the 7-Eleven down, but to bring attention to his struggles, in particular, his delusional belief that he was being interfered with by intrusive brain-altering and perception-altering technologies.

The Court had the benefit of two well prepared reports, namely a pre-sentence report (“PSR”) prepared by a community corrections officer and a forensic psychiatric report, however, a Gladue report was not submitted. Mr. Laforge suffered abuse as a child and bullying in highschool for his Indigenous appearance. He used drugs extensively and eventually dropped out of school. He has only recently learned of his Métis ancestry, as his father was impacted by the “Sixties Scoop”. He has limited work experience and has a history of mental health problems, posing a moderate to high risk to reoffend without assistance from treatment and supports.

Restorative sentences may be more appropriate for Indigenous offenders, but taking a restorative approach will not necessarily lead to a reduced sentence. Generally, the more serious or violent the crime, the more likely it will be, as a practical matter, that the terms of imprisonment will be the same for an Indigenous and a non-Indigenous offender.

Arson is a serious offence. For sentencing purposes, arsonists can generally be divided into four types: pyromaniacs or persons suffering from mental illness; people who burn for no special reason; vandals; and people who burn for revenge or financial gain. Of these, persons who are suffering from mental illness are often considered to have the lowest level of moral blameworthiness while those who commit arson for revenge or financial gain are generally considered to have the highest (R v KH, (1994) 146 NBR (2d) 372 (CA)).

Given Mr. Laforge’s Indigenous heritage, mental health issues and highly reduced level of moral blameworthiness, the joint submission seems overly harsh, in that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest (R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43).

Laliberte v Day, 2020 FCA 119

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal dismissed. The motion judge made no reviewable error in granting the carriage of a proposed class proceeding to a representative plaintiff on behalf of Métis and Non-Status Indian groups affected by the Sixties Scoop.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

The Sixties Scoop was a federal program under which Status Indian, Inuit, Métis, and Non-Status Indian children were taken from their parents and placed in non-Indigenous foster homes or put up for adoption. This appeal concerned the carriage of a proposed class proceeding on behalf of Métis and Non-Status Indians affected by the Sixties Scoop. In the settlement of the Sixties Scoop litigation approved in Riddle v Canada, 2018 FC 901, and Brown v Canada (AG), 2018 ONSC 3429, Status Indian and Inuit Sixties Scoop survivors were only included.

Two motions were brought and heard together in the Federal Court seeking carriage. One motion sought carriage for a proposed representative plaintiff in Day v AG of Canada, represented by two law firms based in Toronto [“Day action”]. In the order under appeal, the Federal Court granted carriage to the plaintiff in the Day action, and stayed the other three actions [collectively as the “LMO action”]. The order was the first contested carriage order issued by the Federal Court. Counsel for the LMO action submit that the motion judge committed both errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in granting carriage to the plaintiff in the Day action.

The motion judge found Mr. Day to be a better representative plaintiff because he reflected the type of circumstances and damage that is common to both the Métis and Non-Status Indian groups and was a textbook claimant and a mirror for both Indigenous components of the litigation. Counsel for the LMO action submits that the motion judge’s treatment of this factor amounted instead to imposing a requirement that the representative plaintiff be typical of the class (Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc v Dutton, 2001 SCC 46).

The Court does not agree that in going on to consider Mr. Day’s circumstances and the nature of the damage that he claims, the motion judge improperly imposed a typicality requirement. The motion judge instead treated the dispute as one that would be litigated to its conclusion, and recognized that Mr. Day personified some of the worst consequences of the Sixties Scoop. His circumstances and the damage he claims was an advantageous platform for a claim on behalf of the class.

The factors that may be considered in a carriage motion are not ends in themselves. Rather, they are means of assisting the court, in the unique context of each case, to determine the best interests of the class (Mancinelli v Barrick Gold Corporation, 2016 ONCA 571; Strohmaier v KS, 2019 BCCA 388; and McSherry v Zimmer GMBH, 2012 ONSC 4113). Not only are these factors not exhaustive; they are also not watertight compartments (Quenneville v Audi AG, 2018 ONSC 1530; Winder v Marriott International Inc, 2019 ONSC 5766; and Rogers v Aphria Inc, 2019 ONSC 3698).

One of the comparisons the motion judge drew was between the litigation experience of the two sets of counsel. He found that both have extensive class action experience, both have experience in the Sixties Scoop and residential schools class actions, and both have experience acting for Métis people, but counsel in the Day action have experience acting for Non-Status Indians as well.

The motion judge saw as leap-frogging the addition of Non-Status Indians to the class definition in the LMO action after the carriage motions had been scheduled. In the carriage motion context, “leap-frogging” refers to an attempt by one contender for carriage to improve its position after the motion has been scheduled by taking the benefit of the work of another contender; for example, by a copycat amendment to pleadings (Mancinelli et al v Barrick Gold Corporation et al, 2015 ONSC 2717, affirmed 2016 ONCA 571 [“Mancinelli”]). A rule has been rejected that carriage motions be decided based on a “freeze frame” as of the date the motion is filed, however, the court should be suspicious of conspicuous new activity after the filing of a carriage motion or of any attempts to ‘leapfrog’ a lagging action ahead of a more advanced one (Mancinelli).

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v ST and BF, 2019 ONCJ 207

Posted on by
Reply

The inability to name a child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities does not negate the initial determination that a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child.

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto [“Society”] has brought a protection application for SF, an 8-month-old child. The child is in need of protection pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 [“the Act”]. At first the child was described as not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child but the Court was not satisfied that it had sufficient evidence and adjourned the case for the Society to further explore the issue. After the matter returned to court, it was held that the child should be identified as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child. The court is not precluded from finding that a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child just because the child does not have any bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities.

The child was brought to a place of safety due to concerns surrounding the parent’s mental health and capacity. The court endorsed that the Society must immediately investigate whether the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, based on information received from the mother. She stated that her mother had told her that she is of Métis background, but also that her mother had lied to her about many things, so she does not know if she is being truthful or not. The Society had not been able to connect with the grandmother, despite multiple efforts. Neither Indigenous Services Canada or any of the Métis organizations that were contacted had been able to confirm the family’s identity. The society did contact the great-grandmother, who confirmed that the family is Métis and that her mother was Indigenous, but that was all the information they had.

Once the court determines that a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the second part of the statutory finding that must be made is to identify the child’s Indigenous bands or communities. There may be more than one band or community (Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v CA, 2018 ONCJ 592 [“CAS of Algoma v CA”]). The Act sets out that its paramount purpose is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples should be entitled to provide, wherever possible, their own child and family services, and all services to such eligible individuals should be provided in a manner that recognizes their cultures, heritages, traditions, connection to their communities, and the concept of the extended family.

The court must apply the definition of First Nations, Inuit or Métis child set out in the Ontario Regulation 155/18 for the purpose of identification under the Act and the criteria is exhaustive. The court should take a broad view in interpreting if the child has a connection to an Indigenous band or community under the regulation. This seems to be in accordance with the spirit of the Act which tends to be more inclusive when it deals with Indigenous peoples. Subparagraph 1(c) of the Ontario Regulation 155/18 uses the words “there is information that demonstrates that”, which sounds like a clear invitation to the person making the s 90(2)(b) determination of identity to rely on information that is not necessarily “evidence”. It says nothing about the standard of such information (CAS of Algoma v CA).

However, to just say that anyone can put forth a claim and have it accepted without question would be an open invitation to abuse the administration of justice. It could cause considerable harm to children by delaying decisions affecting them and would be disrespectful to the First Nations, Inuit and Métis persons the Act is intended to include. While the inability of a person to name specific Indigenous bands or communities might be a factor in assessing the identification issue, it should not be determinative. The reality is that due to the Sixties Scoop, many Indigenous persons now have fractured memories of their Indigenous connections and it is likely that many will not be able to name specific bands or communities. Evidence or information will often come from memories of discussions with relatives and will often lack detail. Many will not be registered with any First Nations band or belong to any First Nations, Inuit or Métis organization. In many cases, neither will their parents. This does not necessarily preclude the court from making a finding that the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child. The new legislative provisions are an opportunity for these children to reignite lost connections with their culture and heritage.

The court should take a broad view in interpreting if a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child (CAS of Algoma v CA). This is an approach that is consistent with the statements made in both the preamble and purposes section of the Act. It is this court’s view that only a low threshold of reliable and credible evidence or information should be sufficient to make a finding that a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child. The Act and regulations set out considerable rights and additional considerations for these children that recognizes their cultures, heritages, traditions, connection to their communities, and the concept of the extended family. It would be contrary to the purposes of the Act to disenfranchise these children. If a child’s Indigenous bands or communities cannot be identified, it is the rights that are set out in the Act that are not activated. However, many other additional considerations still apply to First Nations, Inuit and Métis children in the Act and its regulations that should not be extinguished just because the child’s Indigenous bands or communities cannot be named. The same best interests test applies on an adoption application.

The court received information from the great-grandmother that she identifies as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis person. However, a great-grandmother is not a relative as defined in the Act. The legislature put a limit on how far back the investigation about a child’s family’s First Nations, Inuit or Métis connections would go to two generations before the child. However, the grandmother is a relative, and despite her lack of cooperation with the Society, she provided specific information to the mother that she identified as Métis. The problem the court initially faced was that the mother claimed that the grandmother was not truthful. This is where the subsequent information provided by the great-grandmother became important. Essentially, the great-grandmother corroborated the information provided by the grandmother to the mother, by stating to the Society that the family is Métis and that her mother was Indigenous. The court finds that this evidence and information is sufficient to meet the low threshold required to find that the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child.

Brown v Canada (AG), 2018 ONSC 3429

Posted on by
Reply

Wiyasiwewin Mikiwahp Native Law Centre Case Watch

The Settlement Agreement, other than the legal fees provision, is approved. The $75 million legal fees provision is excessive, unreasonable and is not approved. Class counsel in Brown have agreed to de-link the legal fees provision from the rest of the Settlement Agreement. The Court should be advised when a revised section 11.01 has been agreed to by the parties.

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

The Sixties Scoop has been nationally acknowledged as a “dark and painful chapter in Canada’s history”, prompting twenty-three actions across the country. The Ontario action, Brown v Canada, was the most advanced. After nine years of litigation, it was Brown that established Canada’s liability in tort to the Sixties Scoop survivors in Ontario. Canada agreed to settle Brown but only if the other actions were included in one nation-wide settlement.

Justice Michel Shore of the Federal Court mediated the national settlement. The parties reached an agreement in principle on August 30, 2017. The national settlement agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”) was formally executed on November 30, 2017. As part of the national settlement, the other actions were consolidated into an omnibus Federal Court action, referred to as the Riddle action. On May 11, 2018 Justice Shore approved the Settlement Agreement for the purposes of the Riddle action as he was satisfied that it was fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class members. The Settlement Agreement is before this Court for a similar approval in the context of the Brown action. It is clear from the language in the Agreement that the approval of both courts is required and if any part of the Settlement Agreement is declined, then the Agreement will not take effect and Justice Shore’s approval order in Riddle would be rendered null and void.

This Court had two concerns, however, after reviewing the Settlement Agreement. The first concern was the reasonableness of the $25,000 to $50,000 payment as damages for the loss of one’s Indigenous cultural identity given the harm that was sustained by the class members. The Court was satisfied after reviewing all the evidence and potential pitfalls given the risks of further litigation, that the payment, although modest for the loss of one’s Indigenous cultural identity, was ultimately fair, reasonable and should be approved. The second concern involved the $75 million payment to class counsel for legal fees. The Court viewed the $75 million for legal fees as excessive, unreasonable and was not approved. The focus is the global payment of $75 million in legal fees and not the internal divisions agreed to by class counsel.

The two most important factors in determining the reasonableness of legal fees are risk incurred and results achieved. It is the risk incurred that “most justifies” a premium in class proceedings and is primarily the risk of non-payment. In a case where a class action has been settled with a minimal investment of time or effort, the risk of non-payment causing “personal consequences” to class counsel is relatively insignificant. In a case where the settlement has been achieved after many years of effort with an enormous investment of time and money, the risk of non-payment causing “personal consequences” to class counsel can be significant. Windfalls should be avoided because class action litigation is not a lottery and the CPA was not enacted to make lawyers wealthy.

The percentage of the fund approach that bears no relation to the significance of the risk incurred should not be used in a mega-fund settlement. In Cannon, the Court embraced the percentage of the fund approach because almost all of the settlements were under $40 million. The Cannon percentage of the fund approach remains viable but should be limited to settlement amounts that are common-place, that is, under $50 million. Cannon should never be used in the mega-fund case where the settlement or judgment is more than $100 million. If there is evidence before the Court that the requested legal fees are excessive, the class action judge should examine the risk incurred to help decide whether the amount being requested by class counsel is indeed fair and reasonable.

The risk incurred by class counsel in Brown was, in a word, enormous. Bluntly put, it was as close a case of class counsel “betting the firm” as had been seen. The nation-wide settlement with Canada for some 23 actions, was fuelled in large part by what was achieved in the Brown action. It was therefore beyond dispute for the Court that class counsel in Brown deserve a significant premium in the calculation of their legal fees. Compared to Brown, the risks incurred by class counsel in Riddle are at the opposite end of the spectrum and were not significant. The evidence strongly suggested opportunistic filings and that the risks incurred by the Riddle class counsel in their respective actions did not justify a Cannon-type percentage of the fund approach.

Because the $75 million legal fees provision is not approved, the rest of the Settlement Agreement cannot take effect unless the legal fees provision is de-linked from the other settlement provisions that have been approved. Class counsel in Brown have agreed to de-link the $75 million fees provision from the rest of the Settlement Agreement in the interests of their class members. Class counsel in Riddle have not yet agreed to any such de-linking. The Settlement Agreement has gone back to the negotiating table with the focus being the $75 million legal fees provision, at least for class counsel in Brown. The Court commented that it would be beyond tragic if the Sixties Scoop Settlement Agreement was derailed or delayed because of an unseemly squabble among class counsel over legal fees.

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.