Cree Regional Authority v. Québec (Procureur général), (1991) 127 N.R. 52 (FCA)

• Judge: Hugessen, MacGuigan and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 127 N.R. 52 (FCA)

Cree Regional Authority v. Qué. (P.g.) (1991), 127 N.R. 52 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Le Procureur Général du Québec (appellant/intervenor) v. Cree Regional Authority, Bill Namagoose (respondent/applicants) Raymond Robinson (mis-en-cause/respondent) Hydro-Québec (mise-en-cause/intervenor)

(A-231-91)

Indexed As: Cree Regional Authority v. Québec (Procureur général)

Federal Court of Appeal

Hugessen, MacGuigan and

Décary, JJ.A.

May 14, 1991.

Summary:

The James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement was negotiated and agreed in the 1970's among the governments of Canada and Québec, the Grand Council of the Crees and the Northern Québec Inuit Association. It was ratified by Canada in the James Bay and Northern Québec Claims Settlement Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 32. In it the native people gave up rights in return for guarantees, one of which was that environmental impact assessments would be carried out before any future development was undertaken. When Québec began to move toward starting the Great Whale River Hydroelectric Project, Canada at first insisted that an environmental impact assessment be done, but in late 1990 the federal administrator under the Act refused to apply the federal impact assess­ment review procedures.

The Cree applied for an order of mandamus against the administrator ordering him to comply with the Act. The adminis­trator and Québec and other intervenors challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 42 F.T.R. 160 ruled that the Agreement had the status of a statute, rendering the administrator a federal board and subject to the review jurisdiction of the Trial Division. Québec appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the James Bay and Northern Québec Native Claims Settlement Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 32, which affirmed and ratified an agreement among the govern­ments of Canada and Québec and the native people of Northern Québec, gave the agreement statutory status and made the federal administrator under the agree­ment a federal board over which the Trial Division had review jurisdiction - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed.

Crown - Topic 1004

Contracts with Crown - General principles - Statutory confirmation of contracts - Effect of - [See Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Statutes - Topic 1802

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Reference to one language - When required - The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the English text of a provision in a statutory agreement was the correct one from the context of the provi­sion - See paragraph 31.

Cases Noticed:

Miida Electronic Ltd. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Ter­minal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, appld. [para. 10].

Houde v. Québec Catholic School Com­mission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 937; 17 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 15].

Procureur Général du Québec v. Albert, [1983] C.S.P. 1017, affd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 260; 107 N.R. 235; 32 Q.A.C. 316, refd to. [para. 15].

Procureur Général de la Province de Qué­bec v. Collier, [1983] C.S. 366, affd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 260; 107 N.R. 235; 32 Q.A.C. 316, refd to. [para. 15].

Québec (Procureur général) c. Brunet, Albert, Collier et autres, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 260; 107 N.R. 235; 32 Q.A.C. 316, refd to. [para. 15].

Chait v. Northern Québec Inuit Associ­ation, [1986] R.J.Q. 929, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Com­pany v. Corporation of New West­minster, [1917] A.C. 602, refd to. [para. 15].

Re City of Toronto and Toronto and York Radial Railway Company and County of York (1918), 43 D.L.R. 49, refd to. [para. 15].

Winnipeg v. Winnipeg Electric Railway Co. (1921), 59 D.L.R. 251 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ottawa Electric Railway Company v. Ottawa, [1945] S.C.R. 105, refd to. [para. 15].

Re Carter and the City of Sudbury, [1949] O.R. 455, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22, consd. [para. 16].

Association of Radio and Television Employees of Canada (CUPE-CLC) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 118, dist. [para. 34].

Rogers v. National Harbours Board, [1979] 1 F.C. 90 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 34].

Southam Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (1990), 114 N.R. 255; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 34].

Weywayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Weywayakai Indian Band, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Roberts v. R. - see Weywayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Weywayakai Indian Band.

Statutes Noticed:

Act Approving the Agreement Concerning James Bay and Northern Québec, S.Q. 1976, c. 46 [para. 1].

Cree-Naskapi (of Québec) Act, S.C. 1984, c. 18 [para. 1].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2 [paras. 11, 32]; sect. 18 [para. 11].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, generally [para. 33].

James Bay and Northern Québec Native Claims Settlement Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 32, sect. 3 [para. 28]; sect. 3(1) [para. 15]; sect. 3(5) [para. 13].

Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, S.C. 1912 [para. 2].

Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-22, generally [para. 33].

Counsel:

Bouchard and R. Monette, for the appel­lant;

J. O'Reilly, for the respondent;

P.W. Hutchins and F.S. Gertler, for the respondent;

J.M. Aubry, for the mise-en-cause Raymond Robinson;

G. Emery and S. Lussier, for the mise-en-cause Hydro-Québec;

G. Dugré and J. Hurley, for the intervenor Makivik Corp.

Solicitors of Record:

Bernard, Roy & Associates, Montréal, Québec, for the appellant;

O'Reilly, Mainville, Montréal, Québec, for the respondent;

Hutchins, Soroka, Dionne, Montréal, Qué­bec, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the mise-en-cause Raymond Robinson;

Desjardins, Ducharme, Montréal, Québec, for the mise-en-cause Hydro-Québec;

Byers, Casgrain, Montréal, Québec, for the intervenor Makivik Corp.

This case was heard on April 18, 1991, at Montréal, Québec, before Hugessen, Mac­Guigan and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On May 14, 1991, MacGuigan, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal: