Louison v. Ochapowace First Nation et al., (2015) 476 F.T.R. 37 (FC)

• Judge: Mactavish, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 476 F.T.R. 37 (FC);2015 FC 195

Louison v. Ochapowace First Nation (2015), 476 F.T.R. 37 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.044

William Louison (applicant) v. Ochapowace First Nation, 312050 Saskatchewan Ltd., and Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada (respondents)

(T-1284-13; 2015 FC 195)

Indexed As: Louison v. Ochapowace First Nation et al.

Federal Court

Mactavish, J.

February 17, 2015.

Summary:

Louison applied for judicial review, seeking to quash a Notice to Vacate that had been served on him by the Ochapowace First Nation. Louison argued that the lands in question were rightfully possessed by him as a descendant of the original holders of the land, and as a member of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2015), 473 F.T.R. 316, dismissed the application. The respondents submitted that they should be entitled to their costs fixed at $5,000.

The Federal Court concluded that the respondents were entitled to costs fixed in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements.

Administrative Law - Topic 3349

Judicial review - Practice - Costs - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6966 ].

Practice - Topic 6966

Costs - Definitions - Costs in the cause - Louison applied for judicial review, seeking to quash a Notice to Vacate that had been served on him by the Ochapowace First Nation - Louison argued that the lands in question were rightfully possessed by him as a descendant of the original holders of the land, and as a member of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation - The application was dismissed - The court held that Louison was attempting to re-litigate a legal issue that had already been finally determined against him by the Saskatchewan courts - He did not have standing to assert a claim for Aboriginal title to the lands on behalf of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation - The Federal Court awarded the respondents costs fixed in amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements - The question of what benefit Louison might have derived from his use of the disputed lands was better addressed in the eviction proceedings before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rather than in relation to the question of costs in this proceeding - The court did not agree that Louison should receive a credit for the costs of the respondents' previous unsuccessful motion to strike the Notice of Application - The Prothonotary who dismissed that motion determined that Louison was entitled to his costs of the motion, in the cause, and not in any event of the cause - The effect of an award of costs of an interlocutory proceeding to a party in the cause was that the party would be entitled to his costs of the interlocutory proceeding, but only if he was ultimately successful in the underlying application - The court attached the greatest weight to the manifest lack of merit of Louison's application, and the fact that he was admittedly trying to re-litigate an issue that the Saskatchewan courts had finally determined against him.

Practice - Topic 7364

Costs - Costs of interlocutory proceedings - Costs of motions or applications - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6966 ].

Cases Noticed:

Turner v. Canada, [1989] F.C.J. No. 343, refd to. [para. 10].

Leuthold v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., (2014), 462 N.R. 191; 2014 FCA 174, refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

Adam N. Crocker, for the applicant;

Mervin C. Phillips and Leane Phillips, for the respondents, Ochapowace First Nation and 312050 Saskatchewan Ltd.

Solicitors of Record:

Stephaniuk Law Office, Yorkton, Saskatchewan, for the applicant;

Phillips & Co., Phillips Legal Professional Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondents, Ochapowace First Nation and 312050 Saskatchewan Ltd.

This matter was determined based on written submissions on costs considered at Ottawa, Ontario, by Mactavish, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons on costs and judgment on February 17, 2015.