Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), (1993) 151 N.R. 241 (FCA)

JudgeIsaac, C.J., Stone and Marceau, JJ.A.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 09, 1993
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1993), 151 N.R. 241 (FCA)

Blueberry River Indian Band v. Can. (1993), 151 N.R. 241 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Joseph Apsassin, Chief of the Blueberry River Indian Band, and Jerry Attachie, Chief of the Doig River Indian Band, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Doig River Indian Band, the Blueberry River Indian Band and all present descendants of the Beaver Band of Indians (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Canada as represented by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Director of the Veterans' Land Act (respondent/defendant)

(A-1240-87)

Indexed As: Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Federal Court of Appeal

Isaac, C.J., Stone and Marceau, JJ.A.

February 9, 1993.

Summary:

In 1900, a treaty was signed with the predecessor of the two plaintiff Indian Bands respecting lands. In 1916, 18,168 acres were set aside as reserve lands in accordance with the treaty (I.R. 172). In 1940, the prede­cessor Band surrendered the petroleum, natural gas and mining rights under the reserve to the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.). In 1945, there was a further surren­der of the 18,168 acres to the D.I.A. In March 1948, the D.I.A. transferred the 18,168 acres to the Director, Veterans' Land Act, for $70,000. The Director subsequently disposed of parts of the reserve land, includ­ing the mineral rights, to individual veterans and others. In September 1978, the Indians commenced an action against the D.I.A. and the Veterans' Land Act Director raising numerous arguments, including that the Crown breached fiduciary duties in its deal­ings with I.R. 172.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 14 F.T.R. 161, rejected all the arguments, except that the D.I.A. breached a fiduciary duty to the Indians in transferring the reserve land to the Director for less than the appraised value. The court held, however, that the claim was statute barred by s. 8 of the British Colum­bia Limitation Act. The court therefore dismissed the Indian Bands' action.

The Indian Bands appealed, arguing that (1) the Crown was under a fiduciary obliga­tion previous to the 1945 surrender which required the Crown to advise the Band against surrendering the Indians' interest in I.R. 172, and that this obligation was breached; (2) the Crown failed to strictly comply with one of the formalities of the Indian Act for surrendering I.R. 172, and thereby breached a fiduciary obligation; (3) the Crown breached fiduciary obligations by selling I.R. 172 rather than leasing it and by failing to reserve the mineral rights, if indeed, those rights were capable of being included in the 1945 surrender; (4) the Crown's fiduciary obligations were not extinguished by the transfer of I.R. 172 to the Veterans' Land Act Director in March 1948, but remained outstanding until the various parcels of I.R. 172 were finally deeded to individual purchasers; and (5) the claims were not statute barred. The Indians were not seeking the return of I.R. 172, but claimed compensation for breach of fiduciary obligations. The Crown cross-appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. Isaac, C.J., dissent­ing, would have allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Equity - Topic 3611

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Crown - Duties owed to Indians - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the fiduciary position of the Crown when dealing with a surrender of Indian reserve lands and in dealing with the lands there­after - The court also discussed the limi­tation period applicable to actions for breach of fiduciary duties commenced in Federal Court against the Crown - See paragraphs 136 to 211.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - Limitation of actions - Following a surrender of Indian Band reserve lands, the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.) in March 1948 transferred the land to the Veterans' Land Act Director for an amount below its appraised value - In September 1978, the Indian Bands commenced an action against the D.I.A., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the D.I.A. in selling the land to the Director at a reduced price - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the Indian Bands' action was prescribed by the 30 year limitation period in the British Columbia Limitation Act, s. 8(1) - See paragraphs 134, 198 to 210.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - Limitation of actions - In 1945, two Indian Bands sur­rendered land to the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.) - In 1948, the D.I.A. transferred the land to the Veterans' Land Act Director - In 1978, the Bands com­menced an action, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by the Crown - The trial judge held that the action was statute barred by s. 8 of the British Columbia Limitation Act (1975) - On appeal, the Bands argued that the Act made applicable by s. 38(1) of the Federal Court Act (1970), was not the Limitation Act 1975, but the Statute of Limitations (B.C.) 1948 as it stood when the Federal Court Act came into force - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the 1975 Act applied - See paragraphs 126 to 130, 198 to 203.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5465

Lands - Surrender - Validity of - Two Indian Bands challenged the validity of a 1945 surrender of reserve land, arguing that before the surrender, the Crown breached a fiduciary obligation owed to the Indians by failing to advise them that the surrender was not in their best interests - The Federal Court of Appeal, assuming that a fiduciary relationship existed between the Crown and the Indians prior to surrender, held that the Crown, as fiduciary, was required to put the interests of the Indians ahead of its own interests surrounding the surrender - The court held, however, that where the Indians were made aware of the consequences of sur­render before giving their consent, and approved the surrender, notwithstanding that advice, there was no breach of fiduciary duty - See paragraphs 160 to 172.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5465

Lands - Surrender - Validity of - The Indian Act (1927), s. 51.3, provided that where an Indian Band assented to a land surrender, this fact "shall" be certified on oath by certain persons - Two Indian Bands challenged the validity of a 1945 surrender of reserve land, arguing that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty by failing to comply with s. 51.3 - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the formal­ity of certifying on oath in s. 51.3 was directory, rather than imperative - Where other evidence showed that the required assent was given at the surrender meeting in the presence of the Crown's representa­tive, the Crown did not breach a fiduciary obligation by failing to observe the par­ticular formality under the Indian Act - See paragraphs 115, 173 to 178.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5473

Lands - Surrender - Mineral rights - In 1940, two Indian Bands surrendered to the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.) mineral rights in their reserve "in trust for lease" - In 1945 the reserve land was surrendered to the D.I.A., but this surren­der was silent respecting mineral rights - The 1945 surrender granted the entire reserve "in trust to lease or sell ...." - The Indians subsequently argued that the min­eral rights in the reserve did not pass to the Crown under the 1945 surrender because they were already surrendered "in trust for lease" in 1940 - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that in 1945 the Bands intended to release and did release the whole of their interest in the land, including the reversionary interest left over from the 1940 surrender - See paragraphs 181 to 186.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5473

Lands - Surrender - Mineral rights - In 1945, two Indian Bands surrendered land to the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.) - In 1948, the D.I.A. transferred the land absolutely to the Veterans' Land Act Director - The Indians subsequently argued that the Crown failed to discharge fiduciary obligations subsequent to the surrender by allowing the mineral rights in the reserve lands to be transferred to the Director and by allowing the rights to pass without monetary consideration - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that there was no breach of fiduciary obliga­tions by the Crown in this regard - See paragraphs 117, 120, 181 to 191.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5473

Lands - Surrender - Mineral rights - In 1945, two Indian Bands surrendered land to the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.) - In 1948, the D.I.A. transferred the land absolutely to the Veterans' Land Act Director - The Indians subsequently argued that the Crown's fiduciary duty respecting the mineral rights continued after the reserve land was conveyed to the Director and continued until the Director sold the lands to war veterans - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal held that the Crown's fiduciary obligation respecting the lands was not transmitted to the Director - However, if it was transmitted to the Director, he would have remained subject to that obligation until the fee simple in the lands was finally conveyed to the veterans - See paragraphs 121, 122, 181 to 197.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5475

Lands - Surrender - Duties of Crown re - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed whether there was a fiduciary relationship between the Crown and an Indian Band previous to the surrender of reserve lands to the Crown - See paragraphs 160 to 172.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5475

Lands - Surrender - Duties of Crown re - In 1945, two Indian Bands surrendered reserve land to the Crown in trust for "sale or lease" - The Bands argued that their interest in the lands was not completely extinguished as it would have been if the surrender had been absolute - Therefore, in the post-surrender period, the Crown as a fiduciary was duty bound to consider whether a lease of the reserve land, rather than an outright sale, was in the Indians' best interests - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Crown did not breach fiduciary duties in selling the land, rather than leasing, where at the surrender meet­ing the Bands expressed the desire that the surrendered lands be sold and the proceeds used for certain purposes - See paragraphs 117, 119, 179 to 180.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5475

Lands - Surrender - Duties of Crown re - In 1945, two Indian Bands surrendered land to the Department of Indian Affairs (D.I.A.) - In 1948, the D.I.A. transferred the land to the Veterans' Land Act Director for $70,000 - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the Crown breached its fiduciary duty to the Indians in transferring the land to the Director for less than its appraised value - See paragraphs 117, 197.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5475

Lands - Surrender - Duties of Crown re - [See both Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5465 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5503

Lands - Reserves - Duties of Crown re - [See both Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5465 and first three Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5475 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5506

Lands - Reserves - Nature of Indian interest in reserve lands - Isaac, C.J., of the Federal Court of Appeal, in a dissent­ing judgment, reviewed the nature of Indian title to lands in Canadian law - See paragraphs 25 to 38.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1904

Actions - General - Ultimate limitation period - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "... the Limitation Act (B.C.) of 1975 extends to a claim for breach of a fiduciary obligation and ... the six years limitation period provided for in s. 3(4) may be greater if the circumstances are such as to be covered by s. 6, but in no event could that period extend beyond the 30 year limitation period set forth in s. 8(1)" - See paragraph 210.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1904

Actions - General - Ultimate limitation period - [See first Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1905

Actions - General - Breach of fiduciary duty - [See both Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802 and first Limitation of Actions - Topic 1904 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7604

Actions against the Crown - In the Federal Court of Canada - Applicable law - The Federal Court Act (1970), s. 38(1), pro­vided that the laws relating to limitation of actions in force in any province between subject and subject apply to proceedings in the Federal Court in respect of any cause of action arising in such province - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the argu­ment that s. 38(1) incorporated by refer­ence provincial legislation as it stood when the Federal Court Act came into force - See paragraphs 126 to 130, 198 to 203 - The court stated that "... given that the evident purpose of the subsection was to provide which limitations of actions regime would apply to future proceedings in the Court, Parliament intended to incor­porate provin­cial limitations laws in force from time to time" - See paragraph 203.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9301

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - [See first Limitation of Actions - Topic 1904 ].

Statutes - Topic 5164

Operation and effect - Obligatory, manda­tory, imperative and absolute acts - Direc­tory acts - What constitute - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5465 ].

Cases Noticed:

Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secre­tary), [1921] 2 A.C. 399 (P.C.), refd to [paras. 26, 30-33, 46].

R. v. Symonds (1847), N.Z.P.C.C. 387 (N.Z.S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; [1985] 1 C.N.L.R. 120, refd to. [paras. 29, 31, 45-48, 98, 106, 107, 161-166, 170, 206].

St. Catharine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 56, 59].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General)(The Star Chrome Case), [1921] 1 A.C. 401 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Star Chrome Case - see Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General).

St. Catharine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577, refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 487, refd to. [paras. 34, 164].

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. [paras. 35, 164].

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

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 35, 107, 164, 166].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 97; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 35, 164, 165].

R. v. George, [1966] S.C.R. 267; 55 D.L.R.(2d) 386, refd to. [paras. 37, 69].

St. Ann's Island Shooting and Fishing Club v. The King, [1950] S.C.R. 211; [1950] 2 D.L.R. 225, refd to. [paras. 56, 58, 59, 183].

Theodore v. Duncan, [1919] A.C. 696 (P.C.) refd to. [para. 66].

Maritime Bank (Liquidator) v. New Brunswick (Receiver General), [1892] A.C. 437 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association of Alberta, [1982] Q.B. 892 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193, refd to. [para. 67].

Entick v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Tr. 1029, refd to. [para. 84].

Shaul, Re, [1961] Ex. C.R. 101, refd to. [para. 85].

Bain v. Canada (Director, Veterans' Land Act), [1947] O.W.N. 917, refd to. [para. 87].

Pankha v. Butchart, [1956] O.R. 837; 4 D.L.R.(2d) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 3; 142 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 99, 100, 108, 166, 168, 170, 209].

M.(K.) v. M.(H.) - see K.M. v. H.M.

Zakrzewski v. The King, [1944] Ex. C.R. 163; [1944] 4 D.L.R. 281, refd to. [paras. 129, 202].

Parmenter v. The King, [1956] Ex. C.R. 66, refd to. [paras. 129, 202].

Bera v. Marr, [1986] 3 W.W.R. 442; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 1 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 133, 207].

Wittman v. Emmott, [1991] 4 W.W.R. 175; 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 228; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 77; 45 C.P.C.(2d) 245 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 134, 207].

Kruger v. Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 3; 58 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 163, 199].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 81, refd to. [paras. 166-168].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 14; 69 O.R.(2d) 287; 35 E.T.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 166-170].

Canson Enterprises et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 167, 192].

Hodgkinson v. Simms, [1992] 4 W.W.R. 330; 11 B.C.A.C. 248; 22 W.A.C. 248; 65 B.C.L.R.(2d) 264; 6 C.P.C.(3d) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 172].

Lewis v. Todd, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 694; 34 N.R. 1; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 14 C.C.L.T. 294, refd to. [para. 172].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard and Reg­istrar of Registration Division of Comp­ton at Cookshire, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288; 37 R.F.L.(2d) 225, refd to. [para. 172].

Klimashewski v. Klimashewski Estate, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 754; 80 N.R. 396; 50 Man.R.(2d) 161; 28 E.T.R. 163, refd to. [para. 172].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 172].

Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191; 116 N.R. 1; 71 Man.R.(2d) 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 636, refd to. [para. 172].

Sunrise Co. v. Ship Lake Winnipeg, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 3; 117 N.R. 364; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 701, refd to. [para. 172].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 127 N.R. 147; 46 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 172].

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 153; 45 Q.A.C. 299, refd to. [para. 172].

Lower Kootenay Indian Band v. Canada (1991), 42 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 175].

Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Norman­din, [1917] A.C. 170; 33 D.L.R. 195 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 176].

Melville (City) v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [1982] 2 F.C. 3; 129 D.L.R.(3d) 488 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 176].

Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce and Sterndale Holdings Ltd. v. Governor General-in-Council, Via Rail Canada Inc. and Canadian National Railway Co., [1983] 2 F.C. 98; 44 N.R. 243; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 54 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 176].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 176].

Ottawa-Carleton (Regional Municipality) v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (1986), 69 N.R. 156; 86 C.L.L.C. 14,053 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 176].

Cyanamid Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare (1992), 148 N.R. 2 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 176].

McCain Foods Ltd. v. National Transpor­tation Agency and Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1992), 152 N.R. 166, refd to. [para. 176].

Ramia (Edward) Ltd. v. African Woods Ltd., [1960] 1 All E.R. 627 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 177].

Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554; 47 N.R. 132, refd to. [para. 179].

Surrey (District) v. Peace Arch Enterprises Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 380 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 179].

Berkheiser v. Berkheiser and Glaister, [1957] S.C.R. 387; 7 D.L.R.(2d) 721, not appld. [para. 186].

Earl of Lonsdale v. Lowther, [1900] 2 Ch. 687 (Ch.D.), not appld.. [para. 186].

Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 302; [1976] 6 W.W.R. 10; 11 N.R. 487; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 192].

Reference Re Saskatchewan Natural Resources, [1931] S.C.R. 263, refd to. [para. 193].

Saskatchewan Natural Resources, Refer­ence Re - see Reference Re Saskatche­wan Natural Resources.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Western Higbie and Albion Investments Ltd. et al., [1945] S.C.R. 385; [1945] 3 D.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 193].

Fonthill Lumber Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1959] O.R. 451; 19 D.L.R.(2d) 618 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 195].

Mainwaring v. Mainwaring, [1942] 1 W.W.R. 728; 57 B.C.R. 390; [1942] 2 D.L.R. 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 200].

Gauthier v. R. (1918), 56 S.C.R. 176; 40 D.L.R. 353, refd to. [para. 200].

R. v. Armstrong (1908), 40 S.C.R. 229, refd to. [para. 200].

R. v. Glibbery (1963), 36 D.L.R.(2d) 548 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 201].

Perrie v. Martin, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 41; 64 N.R. 195; 12 O.A.C. 269; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 208].

Angus v. Hart and Angus Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; 87 N.R. 200; 30 O.A.C. 210; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 9 M.V.R.(2d) 245, refd to. [para. 208].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(1) [para. 164].

Department of Mines and Resources Act, 1 Edw. VIII, c. 33, sect. 5 [para. 156].

Department of Veterans' Affairs Act, 8-9 Geo. VI, c. 19, sect. 8 [paras. 16, 156].

Dominion Lands Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 113, sect. 8 [paras. 188-190]; sect. 74(a) [para. 189].

Exchequer Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-11, sect. 31, sect. 32 [para. 202].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.) c. 10, sect. 38(1) [paras. 126, 199, 200, 202, 203].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 39 [paras. 126, 129].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 98, sect. 2(e) [paras. 54, 182, 183]; sect. 2(j) [paras. 54, 182, 183, 185]; sect. 4 [para. 169]; sect. 51 [paras. 115, 173]; sect. 51.2 [para. 178]; sect. 51.3 [paras. 115, 173]; sect. 51.4 [para. 178]; sect. 54 [paras. 54, 60, 182, 183].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, sect. 18(1) [para. 162].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 1, sect. 15 [para. 60].

Lands Act, R.S.B.C. 1924, c. 131, sect. 119, sect. 120 [para. 188].

Limitation Act, S.B.C. 1975, c. 37, gen­erally [paras. 127, 128]; sect. 3(4) [paras. 94, 101, 199 et seq.]; sect. 6 [para. 134]; sect. 6(1) [paras. 204, 205]; sect. 6(2)[para. 204]; sect. 6(3) [paras. 95, 204, 205]; sect. 6(4) [para. 96]; sect. 7 [para. 134]; sect. 8 [para. 102]; sect. 8(1) [para. 198 et seq.]; sect. 14 [paras. 132, 133, 204]; sect. 14(2) [paras. 204, 208]; sect. 17 [para. 130].

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, sect. 45(1)(j) [para. 209].

Minister of the Crown (Transfer of Func­tions) Act, 1946, 10 Geo. VI, c. 31, sect. 1A [para. 80].

Petition of Right Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 158, sect. 8 [para. 202].

Public Lands Grants Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 114, sect. 3 [para. 189].

Royal Proclamation (1763), generally [paras. 30, 45].

Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, 9-10 Geo. V, c. 71, sect. 57 [para. 189].

Statute of Limitations, R.S.B.C. 1936, c. 159, generally [para. 199].

Statute of Limitations, S.B.C. 1948, c. 191, generally [para. 199].

Treasury Solicitor Act, 1876, 39 & 40 Vic., c. 31, sect. 1 [para. 80].

Veterans' Land Act, 1942, 6 Geo. VI, c. 33, preamble [para. 70]; sect. 2(b) [paras. 73, 74, 189]; sect. 2(c) [paras. 73, 74]; sect. 3 [para. 79]; sect. 3(1) [para. 71]; sect. 3(2) [paras. 71, 193]; sect. 5 [paras. 82-86]; sect. 5(1) [paras. 69, 75-78, 86, 87, 122, 193, 194]; sect. 5(2) [paras. 90, 91, 193]; sect. 5(6) [paras. 193, 194]; sect. 7 [paras. 72, 74]; sect. 9 [para. 72]; sect. 10 [paras. 21, 72, 90, 196]; sect. 11 [paras. 72, 90, 196].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bacon's Abridgement, Prerogative [para. 66].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 8, para. 805 [para. 84]; vol. 9, paras. 931, 943 [para. 66].

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd Ed. 1977), [para. 80].

Oxford Companion to Law (1980), p. 1268 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Thomas R. Berger, Leslie J. Pinder, Arthur Pape and Gary A. Nelson, for the appel­lants;

John R. Haig, Q.C., and Mitchell Taylor, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Mandell Pinder, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for the appellants;

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

This matter was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 26 to 30, 1992, before Isaac, C.J., Stone and Marceau, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on Feb­ruary 9, 1993, including the following opin­ions:

Isaac, C.J. (dissenting reasons) - see paragraphs 1 to 104;

Marceau, J.A. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 105 to 135;

Stone, J.A. - see paragraphs 136 to 211.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, (1995) 99 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 2 Septiembre 1994
    ...River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [1993] 3 F.C. 28; 151 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), folld. [para. 155 et seq.]. Apsassin v. Canada - see Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of In......
  • Mathias et al. v. Canada et al., (2001) 207 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 2 Abril 2001
    ...Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1993] 3 F.C. 28; 151 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 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. 822]. Sa......
  • Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1999) 101 O.T.C. 1 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 1 Diciembre 1997
    ...of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344 ; 190 N.R. 89 ; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193 , reving. [1993] 3 F.C. 28 ; 151 N.R. 241; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 504 ; [1993] 2 C.N.L.R. 20 (F.C.A.), affing. [1988] 3 F.C. 20 ; 14 F.T.R. 161 ; [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 73 (T.D.), dist. [para......
  • Wewayakum Indian Band v. Can., (1999) 247 N.R. 350 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • 12 Octubre 1999
    ...River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [1993] 3 F.C. 28 ; 151 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), revsd. [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3 ; 190 N.R. 89 ; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193 , refd to. [paras. 16, 124, footnotes 9, Apsassin v. Canada - see B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, (1995) 99 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 2 Septiembre 1994
    ...River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [1993] 3 F.C. 28; 151 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), folld. [para. 155 et seq.]. Apsassin v. Canada - see Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of In......
  • Mathias et al. v. Canada et al., (2001) 207 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 2 Abril 2001
    ...Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1993] 3 F.C. 28; 151 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 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. 822]. Sa......
  • Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1999) 101 O.T.C. 1 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 1 Diciembre 1997
    ...of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344 ; 190 N.R. 89 ; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193 , reving. [1993] 3 F.C. 28 ; 151 N.R. 241; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 504 ; [1993] 2 C.N.L.R. 20 (F.C.A.), affing. [1988] 3 F.C. 20 ; 14 F.T.R. 161 ; [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 73 (T.D.), dist. [para......
  • Wewayakum Indian Band v. Can., (1999) 247 N.R. 350 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • 12 Octubre 1999
    ...River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [1993] 3 F.C. 28 ; 151 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), revsd. [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3 ; 190 N.R. 89 ; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193 , refd to. [paras. 16, 124, footnotes 9, Apsassin v. Canada - see B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT