British Columbia Native Women's Society et al. v. Canada, (2001) 206 F.T.R. 132 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 206 F.T.R. 132 (TD)

B.C. Native Women's Soc. v. Can. (2001), 206 F.T.R. 132 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.005

British Columbia Native Women's Society and Jane Gottfriedson (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

Pauktuutit, Inuit Women's Association and Veronica Dewar (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

British Columbia Native Women's Society and Jane Gottfriedson (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen (defendant)

(T-2175-99; T-2179-99; T-892-00; 2001 FCT 646)

Indexed As: British Columbia Native Women's Society et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

June 12, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought three actions against Canada, alleging that the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy (AHRDS), a training program designed to enable ab­original people to prepare for, obtain and maintain meaningful employment, discrimi­nated against aboriginal women. Canada applied to strike out portions of the amended statements of claim in two of the actions and the whole amended statement of claim in a third action on the ground that it was an unnecessary duplication of one of the other actions.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out portions of two statements of claim. The Prothonotary struck out the third statement of claim in its entirety.

Civil Rights - Topic 503

Mobility rights - General - Right to pur­sue livelihood in any province - The AHRDS was a training program designed to enable aboriginal people to prepare for, obtain and maintain meaningful employ­ment - Two Associations representing Inuit and aborig­inal women sued Canada, alleging that the AHRDS discriminated against aboriginal women - They alleged that two-thirds of aboriginal people lived off-reserve, most of them were women and children, the urban component of the AHRDS funding was minimal, and this affected the rights of aboriginal women to move off-reserve in order to take up employment or training opportunities, contrary to s. 6 of the Char­ter - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out this portion of the statements of claim without leave to amend - Section 6(2)(b) did not guarantee equal funding - See paragraphs 58 to 65.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - The AHRDS was a training program designed to enable aboriginal people to prepare for, obtain and maintain meaning­ful employment - Two Associations rep­resenting Inuit and aboriginal women sued Canada, alleging that the AHRDS discrim­inated against aboriginal women - One action sought to have provisions allowing their members sexual equality in funding, including the management of such agree­ments, read into the funding agreements - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out the request without leave to amend - While a request to write provisions into a contract to which the Associations were not parties was not a forlorn plea, a request to have the Federal Court recraft a complex gov­ernment program plainly and obviously could not succeed - See paragraphs 35 to 49.

Practice - Topic 2226

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - General - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, set out the law respecting striking out pleadings - See paragraphs 12 to 18.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The AHRDS was a training program designed to enable aboriginal people to prepare for, obtain and maintain meaning­ful employ­ment - Two Associations rep­resenting Inuit and aboriginal women, brought three actions against Canada alleging that the AHRDS discriminated against aboriginal women - A Prothono­tary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out one of the actions without leave to amend where it was a complete duplicate of one of the other actions - See paragraphs 80 to 85.

Cases Noticed:

Dyson v. Attorney-General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Vulcan Equipment Co. v. Coats Co. (1981), 39 N.R. 518 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1981), 63 C.P.R.(2d) 261 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Martel et al. v. Samson Indian Band et al., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 166 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 15].

Waterside Ocean Navigation Co. v. Inter­national Navigation Ltd., [1977] 2 F.C. 257 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Attorney-General of Duchy of Lancaster v. London & North Western Railway Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 274 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Willis v. Beauchamp (Earl) (1886), 11 P.D. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ashmore v. British Coal Corp., [1990] 2 Q.B. 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Poulett (Earl) v. Hill (Viscount), [1893] 1 Ch. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Eggum and Abrametz v. Cumberland House Development Corp. (1990), 88 Sask.R. 164 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

McMillan v. Canada (1996), 108 F.T.R. 32 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Kiely v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1987), 10 F.T.R. 10 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridge & Co., [1915] A.C. 847 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 28].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Van­winkel, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. - see London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel.

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 228; 32 N.R. 163; 39 N.S.R.(2d) 119; 71 A.P.R. 119, refd to. [para. 30].

Johns-Manville Canada Inc. v. Carlo (John) Ltd. (1980), 113 D.L.R.(3d) 686 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Johns-Manville Canada Inc. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 513; 47 N.R. 280; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 593, refd to. [para. 31].

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108; 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287; [1999] 9 W.W.R. 380, refd to. [para. 32].

Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 695; 30 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd. - see Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada and Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd.

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Incan Ships Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co. and Quebec and Ontario Transportation Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada v. McNamara Construction (West­ern) Ltd. et al.; Canada v. Stevenson (J.) and Associates et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654; 13 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 42].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 241; 25 F.T.R. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Roberts v. Canada - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band.

Canada v. Prytula; Canada v. Rhine, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 442; 34 N.R. 290, refd to. [para. 42].

Rhine v. R. - see Canada v. Prytula; Canada v. Rhine.

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attor­ney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'Ecole Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 47].

Harris et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [1999] 2 F.C. 392; 161 F.T.R. 288 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 256 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 264 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 50, 56].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 52].

Dumont et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral) and Manitoba ( Attorney General) (1987), 48 Man.R.(2d) 4 (Q.B.), revd. (1988), 52 Man.R.(2d) 291; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 25 (C.A.), revd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 279; 105 N.R. 228; 65 Man.R.(2d) 182, refd to. [para. 56].

Montana Indian Band et al. v. Canada, [1991] 2 F.C. 30; 120 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1991), 136 N.R. 421 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Black & Co. v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 59].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pine­view Poultry Products Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157; 231 N.R. 201; 223 A.R. 201; 183 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 59].

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson - see Canadian Egg Market­ing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. et al.

Archibald et al. v. Canada, [1997] 3 F.C. 335; 129 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 59].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 61].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 66].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 15, refd to. [para. 67].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 68].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 68].

Whitbread v. Walley (1988), 51 D.L.R.(4th) 509 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 71].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1992] 3 F.C. 192; 146 N.R. 40 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Longley v. Minister of National Revenue (1999), 19 B.C.T.C. 81; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 445 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 77].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 78].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Col­umbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 78].

Powderface et al. v. Baptiste et al. (1996), 118 F.T.R. 118 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 82].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin, Gérald A., and Mendes, Errol, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 14-20, 14-21 [para. 76].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (4th Ed. 1999), p. 187 ff. [para. 21].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2001 Looseleaf Ed.), c. 7.2(b), p. 7-21 [para. 42].

Sgayias, David, Kinnear, Meg, Saunders, Brian and Rennie, Donald, Federal Court Practice (2001), p. 8 [para. 42].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Con­tracts (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 196 [para. 31]; 357 ff. [para. 44].

Counsel:

Teressa Nahanee, for the plaintiffs;

Richard Kramer, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McIver Nahanee Law Corp., Merritt, Brit­ish Columbia, for the plaintiffs;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 30, 2000, by Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on June 12, 2001.