Angus et al. v. Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council, 2008 FC 932

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2008 FC 932;(2008), 334 F.T.R. 187 (FC)

Angus v. Chipewyan Prairie First Nation (2008), 334 F.T.R. 187 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.007

Albert Angus and Walter Janvier (applicants) v. Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council (respondent)

(T-1267-07; 2008 FC 932)

Indexed As: Angus et al. v. Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council

Federal Court

Russell, J.

August 1, 2008.

Summary:

The applicants (Angus and Janvier) sought to quash a June 11, 2007, Band Council Resolution passed by the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council. In the Resolution, the Band Council dismissed Angus, who had been appointed by the previous band council as the Electoral Officer for the nomination meeting and election of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation (CPFN) held in February 2007, as well as for any appeals launched in relation to that election. The applicants also sought an order of mandamus requiring the Band Council to permit Janvier's election appeal to proceed in accordance with the CPFN Election Code and, for that purpose, to provide the necessary funds to allow Angus to complete his mandate regarding the appeals pursuant to the CPFN Election Code.

The Federal Court quashed the July 11, 2007, Resolution and held that Angus remained the duly appointed Electoral Officer to conduct the appeals under the CPFN Election Code. Any concerns that the Band Council might wish to raise regarding Angus' conduct as Electoral Officer could be raised and dealt with as part of the appeal process. No order of mandamus was required because the Band Council agreed that the appeals process be conducted in accordance with the court's order.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The applicants sought judicial review of a June 11, 2007, Band Council Resolution passed by the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council - In the Resolution, the Band Council dismissed Angus, who had been appointed by the previous band council as the Electoral Officer for the nomination meeting and election of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation held in February 2007, as well as for any appeals launched in relation to that election - The Federal Court held that the Band Council was a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" within the meaning of the Federal Courts Act and the Band Council Resolution was a decision reviewable pursuant to the court's jurisdiction under s. 18.1(4) of the Act - See paragraphs 27 to 30.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6222.2

Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Duty of procedural fairness - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6249 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6232

Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Resolutions - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6249 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6238

Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Judicial review - The applicants sought judicial review of a June 11, 2007, Band Council Resolution (BCR) passed by the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council - In the Resolution, the Band Council dismissed Angus, who had been appointed by the previous band council as the Electoral Officer for the nomination meeting and election of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation held in February 2007, as well as for any appeals launched in relation to that election - The Federal Court stated that "the jurisdictional issue in this case, specifically whether the Band Council acted beyond its jurisdiction when it passed the June 11, 2007 BCR is reviewable on a standard of correctness. If it is found that the Band Council acted within its jurisdiction, then the applicable standard of review of the Band Council's decision to remove Mr. Angus as Electoral Officer and to halt further proceedings regarding the Election raise issues of fairness and natural justice and should also be reviewed under a standard of correctness" - See paragraph 33.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6249

Government - Elections - Electoral officer (incl. removal) - The applicants (Angus and Janvier) sought to quash a June 11, 2007, Band Council Resolution passed by the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council - In the Resolution, the Band Council dismissed Angus, who had been appointed by the previous band council as the Electoral Officer for the nomination meeting and election of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation (CPFN) held in February 2007, as well as for any appeals launched in relation to that election - The applicants also sought an order of mandamus requiring the Band Council to permit Janvier's election appeal to proceed in accordance with the CPFN Election Code - The Federal Court quashed the June 11, 2007, Resolution - The Band Council had no jurisdiction to remove Angus as Electoral Officer under either the CPFN Election Code or any general law or procedure that might be applicable - Further, the allegations made against Angus could not reasonably support a decision to remove him as Electoral Officer even if the Band Council had jurisdiction to remove him - The allegations were unsubstantiated and had not been subjected to the safeguards afforded by the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness - The court held that Angus remained the duly appointed Electoral Officer to conduct the appeals under the CPFN Election Code - Any concerns that the Band Council might wish to raise regarding Angus' role as Electoral Officer could be raised and dealt with as part of the appeal process - No order of mandamus was required because the Band Council agreed that the appeals process be conducted in accordance with the court's order - See paragraphs 67 to 82.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6255

Government - Elections - Election legislation - The applicants sought to quash a June 11, 2007, Band Council Resolution passed by the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation Tribal Council - In the Resolution, the Band Council dismissed Angus, who had been appointed by the previous band council as the Electoral Officer for the nomination meeting and election of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation (CPFN) held in February 2007, as well as for any appeals launched in relation to that election - The Federal Court quashed the Resolution, holding that the Band Council had no jurisdiction to remove Angus as Electoral Officer under either the CPFN Election Code or any general law or procedure that might be applicable - With respect to the Band Council's argument that the CPFN Election Code provided that "the Chief and Council may approve such regulations and forms as is necessary to give effect to this Indian Band Custom election code", the court stated that "this is a facilitating provision. It fixes the Band Council with the duty of ensuring that the Election Code works in the way it says it works. It does not provide a power to a newly-elected Band Council to modify or change the primary functions and purpose of the Election Code by regulation or form. Any such 'regulation' or 'form' must 'give effect' to the Code. This provision cannot be used by the Band Council to pass resolutions and enact Regulations that allow it to thwart the appeals process or to come between the eligible voters and their duly appointed Electoral Officer" - See paragraphs 54 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

Gabriel v. Canatonquin, [1978] 1 F.C. 124 (T.D.), affd. [1980] 2 F.C. 792 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Vollant v. Sioui et al. (2006), 295 F.T.R. 48; 2006 FC 487, refd to. [para. 29].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 31].

Gamblin et al. v. Norway House Cree Nation Band Council (2000), 198 F.T.R. 242 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 31].

Martselos v. Salt River Nation #195, [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 15; 2008 FC 8, refd to. [para. 31].

Pete v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 276 F.T.R. 305; 2005 FC 993, dist. [para. 32].

Counsel:

Sandeep K. Dhir, for the applicants;

Jeffrey R.W. Rath, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Field LLP, Edmonton, Alberta, for the applicants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 19, 2008, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on August 1, 2008.