Louie v. Louie et al., (2015) 373 B.C.A.C. 104 (CA)
| Judge | Newbury, Frankel and Groberman, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | April 14, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2015), 373 B.C.A.C. 104 (CA);2015 BCCA 247 |
Louie v. Louie (2015), 373 B.C.A.C. 104 (CA);
641 W.A.C. 104
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.022
Wayne Louie on his own behalf and in his individual capacity as a member of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band (appellant/plaintiff) v. M. Jason Louie in his individual capacity and in his representative capacity as Chief of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band, and in his former representative capacity as Councillor of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band, and Mary Basil in her individual capacity and in her representative capacity as Councillor of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band, Sandra Luke in her individual capacity and in her representative capacity as Councillor of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band and The Council of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band (respondents/defendants) and Chris Luke Sr. in his individual capacity and in his former representative capacity as Chief of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band (respondent/defendant) and Carol Louie in her individual capacity and her former representative capacity as Councillor of the Lower Kootenay Indian Band (respondent/defendant)
(CA41622; 2015 BCCA 247)
Indexed As: Louie v. Louie et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Newbury, Frankel and Groberman, JJ.A.
June 3, 2015.
Summary:
In 2009, the Lower Kootenay Indian Band received $125,000 from the Regional District of Central Kootenay as compensation for the District's use of a road that crossed one of the Band's reserves. During an in camera meeting of the Band Council, five counsellors (the defendants) decided to pay themselves $5,000 each as a "retroactive honorarium" for their work as members of the Council. The plaintiff became aware of the payments in 2011. Acting for himself and on behalf of the Band, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, alleging that the payments had been made in breach of their fiduciary duties. He sought a declaration that the defendants were guilty of breach of fiduciary duty, an order that each was individually liable to return $5,000 to the Band, and punitive damages.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 133, dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granted the declaration sought by the plaintiff, and ordered that each defendant was liable to disgorge the amount of $5,000 to the Band.
Equity - Topic 3649
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of fiduciary relationship - Conflict of interest - See paragraphs 23 to 30.
Equity - Topic 3681
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Use of fiduciary position for profit or gain - General - See paragraphs 23 to 30.
Equity - Topic 3966
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Evidence and proof - Burden re breach of relationship - See paragraph 21.
Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6222
Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Powers - See paragraphs 23 to 30.
Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6222.1
Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Fiduciary duties - See paragraphs 23 to 30.
Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6231
Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Remuneration of chief and councillors - See paragraphs 23 to 30.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Paul Indian Band et al., [1984] 2 W.W.R. 540; 50 A.R. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
Assu v. Chickite, [1991] 1 C.N.L.R. 14 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].
Annapolis Valley First Nations Band v. Toney (2004), 267 F.T.R. 186; 2004 FC 1728, refd to. [para. 16].
Gilbert et al. v. Abbey, [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 734; 4 C.N.L.R. 21 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].
Louie et al. v. Derrickson, [1993] B.C.T.C. Uned. 820 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].
Sparvier v. Cowessess Indian Band No. 73, [1994] 1 C.N.L.R. 182; 63 F.T.R. 242 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].
Leonard v. Gottfriedson (1980), 21 B.C.L.R. 326 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].
Toronto Party for a Better City v. Toronto (City) et al. (2013), 307 O.A.C. 201; 2013 ONCA 327, refd to. [para. 21].
Roberts v. Canada - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band.
Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band (1996), 99 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 247 N.R. 350 (F.C.A.), affd. (2002), 297 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 21].
Chan v. Zacharia (1984), 154 C.L.R. 178 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].
3464920 Canada Inc. v. Strother et al. (2007), 363 N.R. 123; 241 B.C.A.C. 108; 399 W.A.C. 108; 2007 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 23].
Bray v. Ford, [1896] A.C. 44 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23].
Lac La Ronge Indian Band et al. v. Canada and Saskatchewan (1999), 188 Sask.R. 1; 1999 SKQB 218, refd to. [para. 25].
Clayton v. Lower Nicola Indian Band et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 162; 2013 BCSC 162, refd to. [para. 25].
Phipps v. Boardman, [1967] 2 A.C. 46 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].
Canadian Aero Services Ltd. v. O'Malley et al., [1974] S.C.R. 592, refd to. [para. 26].
Canadian Metals Exploration Ltd. v. Wiese (2007), 242 B.C.A.C. 152; 400 W.A.C. 152; 2007 BCCA 318, refd to. [para. 26].
Tornroos v. Crocker, [1957] S.C.R. 151, refd to. [para. 28].
Peso Silver Mines Ltd. v. Cropper, [1966] S.C.R. 673, refd to. [para. 28].
Edmonton (City) v. Hawreluk, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 387; 4 N.R. 197, refd to. [para. 28].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Reynolds, James I., A Breach of Duty: Fiduciary Obligations and Aboriginal Peoples, pp. 196, 197 [para. 21].
Rotman, L.I., Fiduciary Law (2005), ch. 6 [para. 23].
Waters, Donovan W.M., The Law of Trusts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2005), pp. 888 to 890 [para. 24]; 914 [para. 27]; 915, 917 [para. 28].
Counsel:
M.L. Macaulay, for the appellant;
D. Moonje, for the respondents;
Troy Hunter, on behalf of Ron Jackman, applicant for intervenor status.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on April 14, 2015, before Newbury, Frankel and Groberman, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Newbury, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on June 3, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruno v Samson Cree Nation, 2020 ABQB 504
...the Nation and the proposed class. [30] The Plaintiff asserts (PCB para 146, relying on: Ermineskin at paras 10-12; Louie v Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para 29; Assu v Chickite, [1999] 1 CNLR 14 (BCSC); Gilbert v Abbey, [1992] 4 CNLR 21 (BCSC); Toney v Annapolis Valley First Nations Band, [2004......
-
Chung v. Chung,
...“no conflict” rule and the “no profit” rule, which were explained by the Court of Appeal in Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para. 23: [23] I start with the two most fundamental and long standing obligations of fiduciaries – the “no confl......
-
Pirani v. Pirani, 2020 BCSC 974
...[137] In British Columbia, Justice Newbury provides helpful guidance on the fundamental nature of fiduciary duties in Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para. 23: “I start with the two most fundamental and long standing obligations of fiduciaries – the “no conflict” rule and the “no profit” r......
-
Neural Capital GP, LLC v. 1156062 B.C. Ltd.,
...is then said to give rise to a “reverse onus” on Bijan to prove that no breach of fiduciary duty arose. In Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para. 21, Justice Newbury [21] … there is clear authority to the effect that once a prima facie case......
-
Bruno v Samson Cree Nation, 2020 ABQB 504
...the Nation and the proposed class. [30] The Plaintiff asserts (PCB para 146, relying on: Ermineskin at paras 10-12; Louie v Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para 29; Assu v Chickite, [1999] 1 CNLR 14 (BCSC); Gilbert v Abbey, [1992] 4 CNLR 21 (BCSC); Toney v Annapolis Valley First Nations Band, [2004......
-
Chung v. Chung,
...“no conflict” rule and the “no profit” rule, which were explained by the Court of Appeal in Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para. 23: [23] I start with the two most fundamental and long standing obligations of fiduciaries – the “no confl......
-
Pirani v. Pirani, 2020 BCSC 974
...[137] In British Columbia, Justice Newbury provides helpful guidance on the fundamental nature of fiduciary duties in Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para. 23: “I start with the two most fundamental and long standing obligations of fiduciaries – the “no conflict” rule and the “no profit” r......
-
Neural Capital GP, LLC v. 1156062 B.C. Ltd.,
...is then said to give rise to a “reverse onus” on Bijan to prove that no breach of fiduciary duty arose. In Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247 at para. 21, Justice Newbury [21] … there is clear authority to the effect that once a prima facie case......
-
Spending Band Money: When To Seek Legal Advice On Council Remuneration, Including Bonuses
...respect to Council's decisions on spending "Indian moneys". The BC Court of Appeal carefully considered this matter in Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247. In that case, the Lower Kootenay Indian Band had received $125,000 from the Regional District as compensation for the use of a road crossing ......
-
Keep Your (Fiduciary) Hands Off My Money: Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247
...for the payment of honoraria to certain band council members did not pass judicial scrutiny in the recent decision of Louie v. Louie, 2015 BCCA 247. In 2009, the Lower Kootenay Indian Band obtained $125,000 from the Regional District of Central Kootenay. The payment was given to the Band to......