Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) et al., (2015) 469 N.R. 258 (FCA)

• Judge: Nadon, Stratas and Scott, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 10, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 469 N.R. 258 (FCA);2015 FCA 4

Hupacasath First Nation v. Can. (2015), 469 N.R. 258 (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: [2015] N.R. TBEd. JA.007

Hupacasath First Nation (appellant) v. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada and The Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(A-324-13; 2015 FCA 4; 2015 CAF 4)

Indexed As: Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Stratas and Scott, JJ.A.

January 9, 2015.

Summary:

The Hupacasath First Nation (HFN) applied for a declaration that Canada was required to engage in a process of consultation and accommodation with First Nations, including HFN, prior to ratifying the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 438 F.T.R. 210, dismissed the application. HFN appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3205

Judicial review - General - Crown prerogative - The Hupacasath First Nation (HFN) applied for a declaration that Canada was required to engage in a process of consultation and accommodation with First Nations, including HFN, prior to ratifying the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments - The applications judge dismissed the application - HFN appealed - The issue arose as to whether the exercise of pure Crown prerogative, such as the Governor in Council's exercise of power in this case, could be subject to judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction to conduct a review of a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" - Section 2(1) of the Act defined "federal board, commission or other tribunal" as including "any body, person or persons having, exercising or purporting to exercise jurisdiction or powers conferred ... by or under an order made pursuant to a prerogative of the Crown ..." - That definition included Federal officials exercising a pure prerogative power - The Federal Court could therefore review exercises of jurisdiction or power rooted solely in the federal Crown prerogative - See paragraphs 36 to 58.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commission or tribunals - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3205 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - The Hupacasath First Nation (HFN) applied for a declaration that Canada was required to engage in a process of consultation and accommodation with it prior to ratifying the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (CCFIPPA) - The HFN asserted that Canada's ratification of the CCFIPPA without consulting HFN would contravene the principle of the honour of the Crown or Canada's duty to consult HFN before taking any action that might adversely impact upon its asserted Aboriginal rights - The HFN asserted that the CCFIPPA's ratification was a high-level management decision or structural change and had a non-speculative potential to adversely affect its asserted Aboriginal rights in an appreciable way even if it had no immediate impact on its lands or the resources situated thereon - HFN added that Canada's agreement to be bound by the CCFIPPA might set the stage for further decisions that would have a direct adverse impact on land and resources by granting Chinese investors enforceable rights which had to be taken into account when any level of government in Canada made any kind of resource management decision - The applications judge dismissed the application where the evidence adduced did not demonstrate that any adverse impacts that the CCFIPPA might have on HFN's asserted Aboriginal interests would be appreciable and non-speculative - The adverse impacts identified by HFN were speculative, remote and non-appreciable - Additionally, HFN failed to demonstrate the required causal link between the CCFIPPA and those claimed potential adverse impacts - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 59 to 122.

Statutes - Topic 501

Interpretation - General principles - Purpose of legislation - Duty to promote object of statute - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that "... unless there are clear words to the contrary, the text of the Federal Courts Act must be interpreted to achieve its purposes." - See paragraph 53.

Cases Noticed:

William v. British Columbia et al. (2014), 459 N.R. 287; 356 B.C.A.C. 1; 610 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 6].

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia - see William v. British Columbia et al.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650; 406 N.R. 333; 293 B.C.A.C. 175; 496 W.A.C. 175; 2010 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 17].

Rio Tino Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council - see Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission et al.

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388; 342 N.R. 82; 2005 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 17].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; 327 N.R. 53; 206 B.C.A.C. 52; 338 W.A.C. 52; 2004 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 17].

Council of Civil Service Unions et al., Re, [1985] 1 A.C. 374; [1984] 3 All E.R. 935; 62 N.R. 336 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 34].

Black v. Chrétien et al. (2001), 147 O.A.C. 141; 54 O.R.(3d) 215; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 228 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 35].

TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585; 410 N.R. 1; 273 O.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 46].

Steel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 F.C. 143; 418 N.R. 327; 2011 FCA 153, refd to. [para. 47].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 48].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 48].

Minister of National Revenue v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; 340 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 52].

Minister of National Revenue v. Derakhshani (2009), 400 N.R. 311; 2009 FCA 190, refd to. [para. 52].

Southam Inc. and Rusnell v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1990] 3 F.C. 465; 114 N.R. 255 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Tremblay v. Canada (Procureur général), [2004] 4 F.C. 165; 327 N.R. 160; 2004 FCA 172, refd to. [para. 52].

Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 F.C. 218; 293 F.T.R. 58; 2006 FC 727, refd to. [para. 55].

Khadr v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44; 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, consd. [para. 60].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481, consd. [para. 60].

R. v. United Kingdom (Ministry of Defence); Ex parte Smith, [1995] 4 All E.R. 427, affd. [1996] Q.B. 517; [1996] 1 All E.R. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 66].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 66].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 66].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan Act (B.C.) - see Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.).

Irving Oil Ltd. et al. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 67].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. Canada - see Irving Oil Ltd. et al. v. National Harbours Board.

Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810; 451 N.R. 80; 312 O.A.C. 169; 2013 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 67].

Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) - see Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care) et al.

R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Ex parte Everett, [1989] 1 All E.R. 655; [1989] Q.B. 811 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 91; 2014 D.T.C. 5001; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 71].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559; 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 75].

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) et al. (2012), 421 F.T.R. 169; 2012 FC 1336, refd to. [para. 97].

League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2010), 409 N.R. 298; 2010 FCA 307, refd to. [para. 104].

Huu-ay-aht First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 697; 33 Admin. L.R.(4th) 123; 2005 BCSC 697, dist. [para. 113].

Dene Tha' First Nation v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al. (2006), 303 F.T.R. 106; 2006 FC 1354, dist. [para. 113].

Kwicksutaineuk Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 409 F.T.R. 82; 2012 FC 517, dist. [para. 113].

Squamish Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management) et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 1320; 34 B.C.L.R.(4th) 280; 2004 BCSC 1320, dist. [para. 113].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor-in-Council) et al. (2014), 470 F.T.R. 243; 2014 FC 1244, refd to. [para. 121].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2(1) [para. 41]; sect. 18.1 [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th Ed. 1959), p. 424 [para. 32].

Hogg, Peter W., Monahan, Patrick J., and Wright, Wade K., Liability of the Crown (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 19, 20 [para. 32]; 23, 24 [para. 54].

Keith, Arthur Berriedale, The King and Imperial Crown (1936), p. 68 [para. 55].

Kindred, Hugh M., International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada (7th Ed. 2006), pp. 120, 121 [para. 26].

Payne, S., The Royal Prerogative, in Sunkin, M., and Payne, S., The Nature of the Crown: A Legal and Political Analysis (1999), generally [para. 54].

Sunkin, M., and Payne, S., The Nature of the Crown: A Legal and Political Analysis (1999), generally [para. 54].

Counsel:

Mark G. Underhill and Catherine J. Boies Parker, for the appellant;

Lorne Lachance, Mara Tessier and Shane Spelliscy, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Underhill, Boies Parker Law Corp. Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 10, 2014, by Nadon, Stratas, and Scott, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Stratas, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on January 9, 2015.