Landry v. Canada (Ministre des Affaires Indiennes et du Nord), (1996) 118 F.T.R. 184 (TD)

• Judge: Nadon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 118 F.T.R. 184 (TD)

Landry v. Can. (1996), 118 F.T.R. 184 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Yves Landry, Lucie Landry, Serge Dumontier, Jean Landry, Manon Blanchette Landry, Shareen Landry, France Landry, Sacha Desfossés, Kathleen Landry, Bianka Landry, Martin Laperriere, Regine Landry, Danny Landry, Denis Landry, Diane Regniere Landry, Marlene Landry, Chantal Landry, Stéphan Landry, Paule Landry, Ann Landry, René Landry, Noella Landry D., Christian Drapeau, Cindy Drapeau, Marie-Claude Drapeau, Roger Landry, Gisele Lepage Landry, Christine Landry, Patrick Landry, Nicole Landry, Guylaine Landry, Solange Landry, Diane Landry Chartier, Frederic Chartier and François Landry (requérants) v. Le Registraire du registre des indiens, affaires indiennes et du Nord Canada et L'Honorable Ron Irwin (intimés)

(T-1314-94)

Indexed As: Landry v. Canada (Ministre des Affaires Indiennes et du Nord)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Nadon, J.

March 22, 1996.

Summary:

Metsalabanlette and Landry had three children. Metsalabanlette was entitled to be registered as an Indian under s. 6(1) of the Indian Act. Therefore, her children (the children) were entitled to be registered under s. 6(2). Persons registered as Indians under s. 6(2) cannot transmit their status to children or spouses. Later, it was determined that Landry, the children's father, was also an Indian. Thus, the children became registered pursuant to s. 6(1) rather than s. 6(2). Thus, their descendents, the applicants, also became entitled to registration. Subsequently, a petition to the Registrar was filed which alleged that Landry was not an Indian. It objected to the children's re-registrations and the applicants' registrations. The Registrar determined that Landry was not an Indian, the children had been correctly registered the first time (i.e. under s. 6(2)) and the applicants were not entitled to be registered. The applicants applied for judicial review to prohibit the Registrar from deleting their names from the Indian Register.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application because there was no decision to review. The petition was not a protest under s. 14.2 of the Indian Act. If the Registrar deleted the applicants' names, the act would be under s. 5.3 and would be without legal effect because it was not final (i.e. not binding, changeable by the present or a subsequent registrar). However, the applicants could then protest under s. 14.2. If the Registrar decided against them, they could appeal under s. 14.3 to the Quebec Superior Court.

Administrative Law - Topic 5104

Judicial review - Certiorari - Conditions precedent - Requirement of decision or finality of decision - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 170 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 170

General - Registration - Protests - The applicants were added to the Indian Register - A petition to the Registrar alleged that they were not entitled to registration - The Registrar agreed - The applicants applied for judicial review to prohibit the Registrar from deleting their names - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application because there was no decision to review - The petition was not a protest under s. 14.2 of the Indian Act - Thus, if the Registrar deleted the applicants' names, the act would be under s. 5.3 and without legal effect because it was not final (i.e. not binding, changeable by the present or a subsequent registrar) - However, the applicants could then protest under s. 14.2 - If the Registrar decided against them, they could appeal under s. 14.3 to the Quebec Superior Court.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 175

General - Registration - Appeals - [ See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 170 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bay, Re, [1974] F.C. 523; 2 N.R. 513 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36 et seq.].

Mahabir v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 133; 137 N.R. 377 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Statutes Noticed:

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 5(3), sect. 14.2, sect. 14.3 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Serge Tremblay, for the applicants;

Alain Lafontaine, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Forget, Tremblay, St-Eustache, Quebec, for the applicants;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 24, 1995, at Montreal, Quebec, by Nadon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on March 22, 1996.