Manychief et al. v. Poffenroth, (1994) 164 A.R. 161 (QB)

• Judge: McBain, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 21, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 164 A.R. 161 (QB)

Manychief v. Poffenroth (1994), 164 A.R. 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

This Is The Determination of a Ruling Question In The Action

Delia Mae Manychief and Delia Mae Manychief as Next Friend of Tia-Lynn Daniels (plaintiffs) v. Bryan Charles Poffenroth (defendant)

(Action No. 9301-11590)

Indexed As: Manychief et al. v. Poffenroth

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McBain, J.

November 21, 1994.

Summary:

The question whether Delia Mae Many­chief qualified as a wife under the Fatal Accidents Act was ordered to be deter­mined as a prelimi­nary issue in this action. If it was determined that Many­chief did not qualify as a wife under the Act, then her claim would be struck automati­cally.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench de­termined that Manychief was not a wife under the Act and struck the statement of claim.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6018

Aboriginal rights - General - Extinguishment - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in considering whether provincial legislation could extinguish an aboriginal right, stated that "before 1951 provincial law could not have even applied to Indians (never mind extinguished what­ever customs were protected by the com­mon law), if it affected their core values and Indianness. From 1951 until 1982, provincial legislation could have affected Indians in such a manner, but only if it was a law of general application in policy or purpose. However, while provincial legislation of that nature could have applied to Indians, no provincial legislation could be said to have extinguished an aboriginal right, because the embodying federal power to do so, s. 88 of the Indian Act, had no clear and plain intention in this regard" - See paragraph 50.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6023

Aboriginal rights - Particular rights - Marriage by custom - [See Torts - Topic 7554 ].

Torts - Topic 7554

Fatal accidents - Persons entitled - Wife defined - The plaintiff lived with Daniels from 1982 until 1990 when Daniels died - They had a child together - The plaintiff was a status Indian - Daniels was a Métis - The plaintiff stated that the Indian com­munity regarded them as married - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that although common law wives were not included in the meaning of "wife" under the Fatal Accidents Act at the time of Daniels' death, a wife from an "Indian marriage" could come within the definition where the law recognized the validity of such a marriage - The court concluded that marriage by Indian custom was an unextinguished aboriginal right and would be recognized - However, the court found that the plaintiff's rela­tionship with Daniels was not a cus­tomary Indian marriage and she was not a wife under the Act.

Cases Noticed:

Cummings v. Fleming, [1980] 4 W.W.R. 688 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Gaudet et al. v. Rouselle and DeGrace; Cayouette v. Audfroid et al. (1988), 86 N.B.R.(2d) 108; 219 A.P.R. 108 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Trowsdale v. McDonald (1980), 20 B.C.L.R. 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bear's Shin Bone (1899), 4 Terr. L.R. 173 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Connolly v. Woolrich (1867), 11 L.C.J. 197; 17 R.J.R.Q. 75; 1 C.N.L.C. 70 (S.C.), affd. (1869), 17 R.J.R.Q. 266; 1 C.L.N.C. 151 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Nan-E-Quis-A-Ka (1889), 1 Terr. L.R. 211; 2 C.N.L.C. 368 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Williams (1921), 30 B.C.R. 303 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Noah Estate, Re (1961), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 185 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Cote, Ex parte (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 49 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Katie, Re (1961), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 686 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Beaulieu, Re (1969), 3 D.L.R.(3d) 479 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Deborah E4-789, Re (1972), 28 D.L.R.(3d) 483 (N.W.T.C.A.), affing. (1972), 27 D.L.R.(3d) 225 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wah-Shee, Re (1975), 57 D.L.R.(3d) 743 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Tagornak, Re (1983), 50 A.R. 237 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Casimel et al. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 279; 49 W.A.C. 279; 82 B.C.L.R.(2d) 387 (C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

Mabo v. Queensland (1992), 107 A.L.R. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 28].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 470 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1994), 170 N.R. 363; 48 B.C.A.C. 240; 78 W.A.C. 240 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1993] 5 W.W.R. 459; 29 B.C.A.C. 209; 48 W.A.C. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Gar­ment Workers of America, Labour Rela­tions Board (Ont.) and Brant et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 45].

Natural Parents v. Superintendent of Child Welfare (B.C.) et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 751; 6 N.R. 491, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 241; 25 F.T.R. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

Roberts v. Canada - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band.

Vignola v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 118; 51 N.R. 143, refd to. [para. 45].

Bisaillon v. Keable - see Vignola v. Keable et al.

R. v. Kruger, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Alphonse (W.), [1993] 5 W.W.R. 401; 29 B.C.A.C. 161; 48 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Cote, Ex parte (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 383 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55].

Lin, Re (1992), 137 A.R. 1; 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 78 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 59].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 517; 29 B.C.A.C. 253; 48 W.A.C. 253 (C.A.), consd. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(24) [para. 44].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 27]; sect. 52 [para. 63].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. F-5, sect. 3(1)(a) [para. 18].

Fatal Accidents Amendment Act, S.A. 1994, c. 16, sect. 7 [para. 21].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 88 [para. 46].

Marriage Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-6, sect. 4, sect. 23(1) [para. 58]; sect. 29(e) [para. 56].

Royal Proclamation, 1763, generally [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Zlotkin, N.K., Judicial Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law in Canada: Selected Marriage and Adoption Cases, [1984] 4 C.N.L.R. 1, p. 5 [para. 40].

Counsel:

J.C. Stark, for the plaintiff;

G.H. Poelman, for the defendant.

This matter was heard before McBain, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on November 21, 1994.