Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Scott
• Neutral Citation: 2009 MBCA 17
• Citation: 2009 MBCA 17,(2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 84 (CA),236 ManR(2d) 84,(2009), 236 ManR(2d) 84 (CA),236 Man.R.(2d) 84
• Date: 20 January 2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

Métis Federation Inc. v. Can. (A.G.) (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 84 (CA);

      448 W.A.C. 84

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.024

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc., Yvon Dumont, Billyjo De La Ronde, Roy Chartrand, Ron Erickson, Claire Riddle, Jack Fleming, Jack McPherson, Don Roulette, Edgar Bruce Jr., Freda Lundmark, Miles Allarie, Celia Klassen, Alma Belhumeur, Stan Guiboche, Jeanne Perrault, Marie Banks Ducharme and Earl Henderson (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Manitoba (defendants/respondents)

(AI 08-30-06872; 2009 MBCA 17)

Indexed As: Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M.

January 20, 2009.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. (MMF) and 17 individuals, asserted that the Métis people of Manitoba suffered an historic injustice, namely, the loss of a land base which they were to have received under the Manitoba Act, 1870, upon Manitoba's entry into the Canadian Confederation. The individual plaintiffs alleged they were descendants of persons referred to in the Manitoba Act as "half-breeds" entitled to land pursuant to s. 31, and to land and other rights under s. 32 of that Act. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Manitoba, for declaratory relief, hoping that such relief would assist them in future negotiations with the Governments of Canada and Manitoba to achieve a land claims agreement and thereby correct the asserted historical wrong.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 223 Man.R.(2d) 42, refused to grant any of the declarations sought by the plaintiffs and dismissed their claims in their entirety. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. Treaty 1 First Nations sought to intervene on appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 231 Man.R.(2d) 178; 437 W.A.C. 178, refused to allow the intervention. Approximately two months before the appeal was to be heard, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples filed an application to intervene in the appeal and sought an extension of time to do so.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Scott, C.J.M., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 680.2

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Delay or prejudice - [See Practice - Topic 685 ].

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - The plaintiffs, the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. (MMF) and 17 individuals, asserted that the Métis people of Manitoba suffered an historic injustice, namely, the loss of a land base which they were to have received under the Manitoba Act, 1870, upon Manitoba's entry into the Canadian Confederation - The plaintiffs sued the defendants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Manitoba, for declaratory relief respecting these issues - The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety - The plaintiffs filed an appeal - Approximately two months before the appeal was to be heard, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples filed an application to intervene and requested an extension of time to do so - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Scott, C.J.M., rejected both requests - The court noted that Court of Appeal Rule 46.1 required that motions for intervention be filed and served within 30 days after the notice of appeal was filed - Here, there was simply no explanation for the very lengthy delay - In addition, there were legitimate concerns raised by the parties that the intervention would significantly expand the constitutional issues.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Creekside Hideaway Motel Ltd. et al. (2007), 212 Man.R.(2d) 231; 389 W.A.C. 231; 2007 MBCA 19, refd to. [para. 11].

Bohemier et al. v. CIBC Mortgages Inc. (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 39; 262 W.A.C. 39; 2001 MBCA 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Reference Re Employment Insurance Act, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 669; 339 N.R. 279; 2005 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 13].

Confédération des syndicats nationaux v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 382 N.R. 200; 2008 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 13].

Reference Re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698; 328 N.R. 1; 2004 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 13].

Daniels et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2002] 4 F.C. 550; 220 F.T.R. 41; 2002 FCT 295, refd to. [para. 21].

Daniels et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A60; 18 E.T.R.(3d) 312; 2005 FC 1109, refd to. [para. 21].

Daniels et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 576; 2008 FC 823, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Roberge (R.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 469; 337 N.R. 389; 269 Sask.R. 37; 357 W.A.C. 37; 2005 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

T.R. Berger, Q.C., and H.I. Schachter, for the appellants;

R.A. Dewar, Q.C., P.R. Anderson and C.D. Clark, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

H.S. Leonoff, Q.C., and M.A. Conner, for the respondent, Attorney General of Manitoba;

A.K. Lokan, for the proposed intervener, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

This application was heard on January 20, 2009, before Scott, C.J.M., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on the same date. Written reasons of the decision were released on February 5, 2009.