Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation, (2005) 361 A.R. 287 (CA)

• Judge: Conrad, McFadyen and Berger, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 26, 2004
• Citations: (2005), 361 A.R. 287 (CA);2005 ABCA 15

Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation (2005), 361 A.R. 287 (CA);

    339 W.A.C. 287

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JA.114

Betty Ann Horseman (respondent/plaintiff) v. Horse Lake First Nation, As Represented by Its Chief and Council (appellant/respondent)

(0203-0390-AC; 2005 ABCA 15)

Indexed As: Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, McFadyen and Berger, JJ.A.

January 14, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant Indian band for damages and a declaration that she was a member of her aboriginal community. The band applied to have the action struck out, asserting that the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter or, alternatively, the claim failed to disclose a cause of action.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 323 A.R. 81, dismissed the application. The Band appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Conrad, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal in part and struck the claim for declaratory relief.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The plaintiff sued an Indian band for damages and a declaration that she was a member of her aboriginal community - The band applied to strike the action, asserting that the Federal Court had exclusive original jurisdiction to grant the relief sought (Federal Court Act, ss. 18 and 18.1) - A chambers judge dismissed the application, holding that the band did not meet the three part test for determining if the subject matter was given to the Federal Court - Firstly, it was not plain and obvious from the pleadings that the issues raised were not issues of contract, tort, statutory breach or fiduciary relationship law within the vires of the province and were excluded from the court by operation of the Federal Court Act - It was not plain and obvious that ss. 18 and 18.1 governed - Secondly, investment of federal law was not clear - Thirdly, it was not plain and obvious that a "law of Canada" was involved such as to exclude the court's jurisdiction - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the refusal to strike the statement of claim - However, the court struck the claim for declaratory relief - No Court of Queen's Bench order, in the context of the litigation as framed, could have the effect of restoring the plaintiff to the band's rolls - The Queen's Bench lacked jurisdiction to grant such an order or the declaratory relief sought - See paragraphs 51 to 68.

Courts - Topic 4043

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Declaratory relief - [See Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 4054

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Indians - [See Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5686

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Respecting federal boards or tribunals - [See Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Courts - Topic 5687

Provincial courts - General - Jurisdiction or powers - Over Indians - [See Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Courts - Topic 4021 ].

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nickolaisen 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. 9].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 9].

Paragon Controls Ltd. v. Valtek International et al. (1998), 299 A.R. 373; 266 W.A.C. 373; 1998 ABCA 19, refd to. [para. 9].

Pearson v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (1997), 200 A.R. 380; 146 W.A.C. 380; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Fullowka v. Whitford et al., [1997] N.W.T.R. 1; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 531 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 222 N.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 18].

Sabattis et al. v. Oromocto Indian Band and Sacobie et al. (1986), 76 N.B.R.(2d) 227; 192 A.P.R. 227; 32 D.L.R.(4th) 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Mintuck v. Valley River Band No. 63A, [1977] 2 W.W.R. 309; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 589 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Veterinary Association (Ont.) (1985), 51 O.R.(2d) 183 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Westbank First Nation v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 134; 246 N.R. 201; 129 B.C.A.C. 1; 210 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Twigg v. Blood Band of Indians (1988), 94 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 34].

Conseil de la Première Nation Malécite de Viger v. Trembley et al., [2001] 2 C.N.L.R. 43 (Que. C.A.), dist. [para. 34].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 38].

Clow Darling Ltd. v. Big Trout Lake Indian Band (1989), 70 O.R.(2d) 56 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Rider v. Ear (1979), 103 D.L.R.(3d) 168 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Canatonquin et al. v. Gabriel et al., [1981] 4 C.N.L.R. 61 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Shield v. Siksika Nation Indian Council Band No. 430 et al. (1995), 159 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].

Cardinal v. Calliou et al. (1999), 247 A.R. 95 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].

Twigg v. Blood Indian Band Chief (1989), 64 Alta. L.R.(2d) 258 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].

Ermineskin v. Ermineskin Indian Band Council (1995), 96 F.T.R. 181 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Scrimbitt v. Sakimay Indian Band Council, [2000] 1 C.N.L.R. 205 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Wahta Mohawk Women's Group v. Wahta Mohawks (2000), 189 F.T.R. 218 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583, refd to. [para. 63].

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 24; 220 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Paron et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection), [2000] A.R. Uned. 327; 83 Alta. L.R.(3d) 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 67].

Broder Estate v. Broder, [2002] A.R. Uned. 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (2nd Ed. 2002), pp. 813 [para. 27]; 876, 877 [para. 29]; 880 [para. 30].

Woolf and Woolf, Jeremy, The Declaratory Judgment (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 1 [para. 39].

Counsel:

H.D.D. Lloyd, Q.C., and H.L. Treacy, for the appellant;

D.A. Cranna, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 26, 2004, by Conrad, McFadyen and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The reserved reasons for judgment of the court were filed on January 14, 2005, including the following opinions:

Conrad, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 1 to 50;

McFadyen and Berger, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 51 to 68.