Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation) et al., 2012 ABCA 36

• Judge: Côté, Hunt and Bielby, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: December 28, 2011
• Citations: 2012 ABCA 36;(2012), 522 A.R. 159

Cold Lake First Nations v. Alta. (2012), 522 A.R. 159; 544 W.A.C. 159 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. FE.025

Cold Lake First Nations (respondent/applicant) v. The Queen in Right of Alberta as represented by The Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation (appellant/respondent) and Brian Grandbois, Jean Grandbois, Harvey Scanie, Nancy Scanie, Allen Scanie, Carrie Lawrence, Kelsey Jacko and Margaret Piche (respondents/individual respondents)

(1103-0218-AC; 2012 ABCA 36)

Indexed As: Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Hunt and Bielby, JJ.A.

February 2, 2012.

Summary:

A dispute arose between the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation and the Cold Lake First Nations (CLFN) concerning a parcel of land (Blueberry Point) where the Minister was going to extend a campground. The CLFN sought judicial review of the construction decision. The parties entered into a consent order respecting the land pending the hearing of the application. Another related order was made by Goss, J. The Minister applied to have the CLFN and eight individuals held in contempt of the consent order and Goss order. Manderscheid, J., dismissed the contempt application and made substantial variations to the consent order and Goss order. The Minister appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as against Carrie Lawrence, on the basis that she was not served with either the order under appeal or the notice of the appeal. The appeal was allowed as to the other individuals. The contempt application was remitted to the Court of Queen's Bench to be reheard by another judge of that court, should the appellant choose to apply for that rehearing.

Contempt - Topic 5102

Practice - Hearing - Right to counsel - A dispute arose between the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation and the Cold Lake First Nations (CLFN) concerning a parcel of land (Blueberry Point) where the Minister was going to extend a campground - The CLFN sought judicial review of the construction decision - The parties entered into a consent order respecting the land pending the hearing of the application - Another related order was made by Goss, J. - The Minister applied to have the CLFN and eight individuals held in contempt of the two orders - At the hearing, the individuals were unrepresented and might have had difficulty understanding English - The individuals had not received notice of the orders, nor were they given an opportunity to make representations prior to the granting of the orders - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge should have adjourned the contempt application - A judge had a special duty to provide limited assistance to unrepresented parties, including in cases of contempt - The chambers judge should have expressly advised the individuals of their right to be represented by a lawyer and explained that the assistance of a lawyer might be important to ensure their position was fully advanced to the court - The failure to do so resulted in the individuals being deprived of an effective opportunity to be heard - This error of law was compounded by the failure to investigate the need for an interpreter in circumstances where it appeared that some or all of the individuals might require that aid - See paragraphs 21 to 33.

Courts - Topic 589

Judges - Duties - To self-represented party - [See Contempt - Topic 5102 ].

Practice - Topic 5011

Conduct of trial - General principles - Interpreter - [See Contempt - Topic 5102 ].

Cases Noticed:

Alberta Securities Commission v. Workum et al. (2010), 493 A.R. 1; 502 W.A.C. 1; 2010 ABCA 405, refd to. [para. 20].

Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia et al. (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 15; 523 W.A.C. 15; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 330; 2011 BCCA 311, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Brant et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. F18; [2009] 4 C.N.L.R. 47; 96 O.R.(3d) 734 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 199 N.R. 279; 79 B.C.A.C. 135; 129 W.A.C. 135; 137 D.L.R.(4th) 633, refd to. [para. 22].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson - see MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al.

R. v. Phillips (M.A.) (2003), 320 A.R. 172; 288 W.A.C. 172; 2003 ABCA 4, affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 623; 311 N.R. 94; 339 A.R. 50; 312 W.A.C. 50; 2003 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. McGibbon (1988), 31 O.A.C. 10; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. B.K.S. (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 149; 170 W.A.C. 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Beaver First Nation Band v. A.T.N. Farms Ltd. et al. (2001), 356 A.R. 1; 2001 ABQB 748, refd to. [para. 24].

CT Comm Edmonton Ltd. v. Shaw Communications Inc. et al. (2007), 423 A.R. 338; 2007 ABQB 473, refd to. [para. 24].

College of Optometrists (Ont.) v. SHS Optical Ltd. et al. (2008), 241 O.A.C. 225; 93 O.R.(3d) 139; 2008 ONCA 685, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hardy (1991), 120 A.R. 151; 8 W.A.C. 151; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hicks v. Kennedy (1957), 6 D.L.R.(2d) 567; 20 W.W.R. 517 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Deiure v. Deiure (2000), 281 A.R. 146; 2000 ABCA 328, refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

E.C. Lew and K.L. Lambert, for the respondent/applicant;

S.C. Latimer and A.L. Edgington, for the appellant/respondent;

Brian Grandbois, Jean Grandbois, Harvey Scanie, Nancy Scanie, Allen Scanie, Carrie Lawrence, Kelsey Jackso and Margaret Piche, the respondents/individual respondents, appeared in person.

This appeal was heard on December 28, 2011, before Côté, Hunt and Bielby, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered by the court on February 2, 2012.