Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia et al.

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Judge: Lysyk, J.
• Citation: (1999), 23 B.C.T.C. 222 (SC)
• Date: 01 November 1999
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE

Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. B.C. (1999), 23 B.C.T.C. 222 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. DE.103

The Council of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation (plaintiff/respondent) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada (defendants/applicants)

(98 4734)

Indexed As: Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Victoria

Lysyk, J.

November 26, 1999.

Summary:

The Council of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation sued for a declaration that the Cheslatta have an existing aboriginal and treaty right to fish certain species of fish in Cheslatta Lake and related waters. The defendants, British Columbia and Canada, applied to strike out the amended statement of claim and dismiss the action on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action because it failed to plead any actual or threatened infringement. Canada also chal­lenged the standing of the Council.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that it was not "plain and obvious" that the action was certain to fail on the basis that the Council lacked standing. The court held that the Council had to plead actual or ap­pre­hended infringement of an aboriginal right and granted leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 8703

Practice - General - Pleading infringement of right - See paragraphs 1 to 21 and 28 to 39.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 8735

Practice - Representative actions - On behalf of band and/or nation - See para­graphs 22 to 27.

Practice - Topic 2215

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Declaratory actions - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Fail­ure to disclose a cause of action or defence - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Practice - Topic 2230.3

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Fail­ure to plead material facts - See para­graphs 1 to 39.

Practice - Topic 5718

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Pleading - Defence - See para­graphs 7 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, appld. [para. 5].

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

Balacko v. Eaton (T.) Co. Canada (1967), 60 W.W.R. 22 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Saunders v. Multi Builders Ltd. and Haywood (1981), 30 B.C.L.R. 236 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 16].

Heller v. Greater Vancouver (Regional District) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 1; 29 W.A.C. 1; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 718 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. viii; 152 N.R. 239; 32 B.C.A.C. 79; 53 W.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 200 N.R. 189; 79 B.C.A.C. 161; 129 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 19].

Fraser v. Houston, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2906 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 38 C.R.R. 232; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 33 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 97, dist. [para. 24].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [para. 31].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Seward (J.L.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 306; 194 W.A.C. 306; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Montana Indian Band et al. v. Canada, [1991] 2 C.N.L.R. 88; 120 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.) leave to appeal refused (1991), 136 N.R. 421 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 37].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr. (1999), 246 N.R. 83; 178 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 549 A.P.R. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr. (1999), 247 N.R. 306; 179 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 553 A.P.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sarna, The Law of Declaratory Judgments (2nd Ed. 1988), pp. 19, 20 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Robert J.M. Janes and Patricia Hutchings, for the plaintiff/respondent;

T. Leadem and K. Kickbush, for the defendant/applicant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Brit­ish Columbia;

H. Wruck, Q.C., for the defendant/appli­cant, Attorney General of Canada.

This application was heard in chambers, in Vancouver, British Columbia, on August 26, 27, October 8 and Novem­ber 1, 1999, by Lysyk, J., of the British Col­umbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on Novem­ber 26, 1999.