Gespeg First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., (2009) 402 N.R. 313 (FCA)

• Judge: Noël, Pelletier and Trudel, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 19, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 402 N.R. 313 (FCA);2009 FCA 377

Gespeg First Nation v. Can. (2009), 402 N.R. 313 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.R. TBEd. JA.028

Linda Jean, Chef de la Nation Micmac de Gespeg, en son nom et en celui de tous les autres membres de sa bande, et le Conseil de la Nation Micmac de Gespeg (appelants) v. Le Ministre des affaires indiennes et du nord Canadien et le Procureur général du Canada (intimés) et Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (intervenante)

(A-593-07; 2009 FCA 377; 2009 CAF 377)

Indexed As: Gespeg First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Noël, Pelletier and Trudel, JJ.A.

December 22, 2009.

Summary:

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada established the Elementary/Secondary Education Program which enabled the Minister to contribute funding of education services offered in band schools and federal schools. The Program also funded eligible expenses for education services and financial assistance to students who attended an off-reserve elementary or secondary school. The Minister refused to grant financial assistance to members of the applicant First Nation because they did not meet the residency requirements, i.e., the First Nation did not have a reserve nor did it occupy lands set aside by federal government or any other Crown lands designated as settlement lands. The First Nation applied for judicial review of the Minister's refusal.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 316 F.T.R. 130, dismissed the application. The First Nation appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 5646

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Indians and Métis - The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada established the Elementary/Secondary Education Program which enabled the Minister to contribute funding of education services offered in band schools and federal schools - The Program also funded eligible expenses for education services and financial assistance to students who attended an off-reserve elementary or secondary school - The Minister refused to grant financial assistance to members of the applicant First Nation because they did not meet the residency requirements, i.e., the First Nation did not have a reserve nor did it occupy lands set aside by federal government or any other Crown lands designated as settlement lands - The First Nation applied for judicial review of the Minister's refusal, asserting that because of the requirement to live on a reserve (or Crown lands), the Program did not apply to Indian students living on the First Nation's traditional territory and this infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter - The applications judge dismissed the application - The applications judge agreed that the Program drew a formal distinction between residents and non-residents of a reserve - However, students, band members or not, who did not live on a reserve or Crown lands were treated the same way as non-Indian students enrolled in a provincial school - Both Indians and non-Indians did not have access to the benefits of the Program - Accordingly, even if analogous grounds existed, there was no discrimination under the circumstances - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - The exclusion of students not resident on reserve, within the meaning of the Program, did not violate s. 15(1) - Further, the Program's purpose was compatible with s. 15(1) and this purpose was not compromised because the Program targeted students resident on reserve - See paragraphs 47 to 79.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5646 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6283

Government - Education - Funding - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5646 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, consd. [para. 6].

Lovelace v. Ontario - see Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al.

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 255 N.R. 1; 134 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 8].

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. 9].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 33].

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 2 F.C.R. 108; 315 N.R. 76; 2003 FCA 473, refd to. [para. 33].

Board of Education of School District No. 91 (Nechako Lakes) v. Patrick et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 19; 97 B.C.L.R.(3d) 364; 2002 BCSC 19, refd to. [para. 38].

Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2005), 269 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 1622, refd to. [para. 38].

Ermineskin Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2005), 269 F.T.R. 188; 2005 FC 1623, refd to. [para. 38].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (1987), 56 Sask.R. 129; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 731 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 38].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 38].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 65].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 65].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 65].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 65].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 65].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh - see Walsh v. Bona.

Walsh v. Bona, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325; 297 N.R. 203; 210 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 659 A.P.R. 273; 2002 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 65].

Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769; 284 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; 96 N.R. 227; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 235 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 66].

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; 244 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 65].

Baier et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673; 365 N.R. 1; 412 A.R. 300; 404 W.A.C. 300; 2007 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 66].

Wolff (Rudolph) & Co. and Noranda Inc. v. Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 695; 106 N.R. 1; 39 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 66].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 66].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 70].

Counsel:

Mary Eberts and David Schulze, for the appellants;

Nancy Bonsaint and Virginie Cantave, for the respondents;

Joanna Birenbaum and Dianne Pothier, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Dionne, Gertler, Schulze, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents;

Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on October 19, 2009, by Noël, Pelletier and Trudel, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Trudel, J.A., at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 22, 2009.