Chippewas of the Nawash First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., (1996) 116 F.T.R. 37 (TD)

• Judge: Nadon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 116 F.T.R. 37 (TD)

Chippewas v. Can. (1996), 116 F.T.R. 37 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Chief Ralph Akiwenzie, on behalf of the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen, as represented by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-491-95)

Indexed As: Chippewas of the Nawash First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Nadon, J.

June 28, 1996.

Summary:

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs decided to disclose certain records of an Indian Band (i.e., band council resolutions). The Band applied for a review of the decision under s. 44 of the Access to Information Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 5646

Equality and protection of the law - Indians - [See Crown - Topic 7220.06 ].

Crown - Topic 7164

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Application of - The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs decided to disclose certain Indian Band Council resolutions (documents) relating to land held by the Band - The Band applied for a review of the decision under s. 44 of the Access to Information Act, arguing that because of the fiduciary relationship existing between the Band and the federal government either at common law or in the Constitution (s. 35), the documents were not subject to disclosure under the Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the Band's argument and dismissed the application - See paragraphs 11 to 24.

Crown - Topic 7171

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Legislation - Disclosure - Confidential information supplied by third party - The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs decided to disclose certain Indian Band Council resolutions (documents) relating to land held by the Band - The Band applied for a review of the decision under s. 44 of the Access to Information Act, arguing, inter alia, that the documents were exempt from disclosure under s. 20(1)(b) of the Act because the documents constituted "financial, commercial, scientific or technical information ... treated consistently in a confidential manner" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the Band's application where the documents did not fall within the definition of "financial, commercial, scientific or technical information" - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Crown - Topic 7220.06

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information - Bars - Information obtained in confidence from another government - The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs decided to disclose certain Indian Band Council resolutions (documents) relating to land held by the Band - The Band applied for a review of the decision under s. 44 of the Access to Information Act, arguing that the documents constituted information obtained in confidence from another government within the meaning of s. 13 of the Act - The Band argued further that if the Act did not apply to the Band, then that omission breached the Band's equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 13 did not apply to the Band and rejected the s. 15 argument - See paragraphs 28 to 43.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown - Fiduciary duty - [See Crown - Topic 7164 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 2106

Nations, tribes and bands - Bands - Resolutions - Confidentiality - [See Crown - Topic 7164 , Crown - Topic 7171 and Crown - Topic 7220.06 ].

Cases Noticed:

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; [1985] 1 C.N.L.R. 120, not appld. [paras. 10, 14, footnote 4].

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. [paras. 11, 13, footnote 6].

Montana Band of Indians v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1989] 1 F.C. 143; 18 F.T.R. 15 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 343; 190 N.R. 89; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

R. v. Apsassin - see Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development).

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 9 W.W.R. 609; 22 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

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; 35 E.T.R. 1; 44 B.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 8].

Kruger v. R. (1981), 125 D.L.R.(3d) 513 (F.C.T.D.), affd., [1986] 1 F.C. 3; 58 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1986), 62 N.R. 102 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 17, footnote 10].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 12].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. National Energy Board - see Quebec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie.

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; [1989] 1 C.N.L.R. 47, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 20].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.) (1993), 29 B.C.A.C. 209; 48 W.A.C. 209 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [1994] 1 S.C.R. xii; 170 N.R. 382; 52 B.C.A.C. 160; 86 W.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 24].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al. (1993), 29 B.C.A.C. 253; 48 W.A.C. 253 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1994), 170 N.R. 366; 48 B.C.A.C. 240; 78 W.A.C. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 25].

R. v. N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd. (1993), 29 B.C.A.C. 273; 48 W.A.C. 273 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1994), 170 N.R. 366; 48 B.C.A.C. 240; 78 W.A.C. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 25].

R. v. Kruger and Manuel, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 27].

Air Atonabee Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1989), 27 F.T.R. 194 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 28].

Contra Otineka Development Corp. v. Canada, [1994] 1 C.T.C. 2424 (T.C.C.), not appld. [para. 30, footnote 31].

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (President), [1989] 1 F.C. 265; 86 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 32].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1986] 1 F.C. 274; 12 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 79 N.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 33].

Mund v. Medicine Hat (City) (1985), 67 A.R. 11 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 33].

R. v. Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 81; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 33].

R. v. Stoddart (1987), 20 O.A.C. 365; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 34].

Wolff (Rudolf) & Co. and Noranda Inc. v. Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 695; 106 N.R. 1; 39 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Ramjiban Serowgee, [1938] A.C. 429 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 36].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 39].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 41].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 41].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 41].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta (1996), 184 A.R. 351; 122 W.A.C. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 42].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, sect. 13(1), sect. 13(2) [para. 28]; sect. 20(1) [para. 25]; sect. 44 [para. 1].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15 [paras. 8, 29].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 20]; sect. 52 [para. 11, footnote 9].

Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 149(1) [para. 32].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 2(1) [para. 11, footnote 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rankin, M., and Woodward, J., Annotation to Twinn v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1987), 26 Admin. L.R. 197, pp. 199, 200 [para. 36, footnote 37].

Counsel:

Patrick M. Nadjiwan and David C. Nahwegahbow, for the applicant;

Dogan D. Akman, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Nahwegahbow Hawken, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 25, 1996, before Nadon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 28, 1996.