Opetchesaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al., (1997) 211 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 211 N.R. 241 (SCC);[1997] 2 SCR 119;1997 CanLII 344 (SCC);211 NR 241;[1998] 1 CNLR 134;147 DLR (4th) 1;90 BCAC 1;[1997] 7 WWR 253;[1997] SCJ No 50 (QL)

Opetchesaht Indian Band v. Can. (1997), 211 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

The Opetchesaht, An Indian Band, and Danny Watts, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the Members of the Opetchesaht (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (respondents) and Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (intervenor) and B.C. Tel, B.C. Gas Utility Ltd. and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (intervenors)

(24161)

Indexed As: Opetchesaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 22, 1997.

Summary:

A federal Crown permit granted in 1959 to a provincial government utility authorized the erection and maintenance of an electric power transmission line along a designated right of way on reserve lands. The Indian band sued the federal Crown and applied under rule 18A for summary judgment. The trial judge held that the permit was invalid for want of certainty as to its duration. The utility and the federal Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 41 B.C.A.C. 241; 66 W.A.C. 241, allowed the appeal. The court held that s. 28 of the Indian Act permitted grants of interests for periods having no predetermined termination date. The Minis­ter was authorized to grant rights of use and occupation under s. 28 that could also be granted under ss. 35 or 37 of the Act, pro­vided that s. 28 grants could not amount to "transfer of title to, or ownership of, the land". The Indian Band appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin and Cory, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 6890

Crown lands - Licences or permits to use - Indian reserves - Section 28 of the Indian Act provided that the Minister could authorize occupation or use of reserve lands for less than one year or, with consent of band council, for "any longer period" - In 1959, the federal Crown, with council's consent, granted B.C. Hydro a permit (i.e., statutory ease­ment) for power transmission lines across reserve lands for an indeterminate period (until easement no longer required for transmission line) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the permit was intra vires s. 28(2) - Although the end of the "period" was indeterminate, it was readily ascertainable and not perpetual - "Any longer period" was not limited to a fixed number of years, but could be measured either by dates or events - The only re­quirement under s. 28(2) was that the end of the period be ascertainable and not, in effect, a grant in perpetuity - The court held that the permit did not constitute a "sale, alienation, lease or other disposi­tion" which had to be effected by surren­der under s. 37 - McLachlin and Cory, JJ., dissenting, stated that (1) the statutory easement was an interest in land that could potentially continue in perpetuity and could only be removed from the band by expropriation (s. 35) or surrender (s. 37); and (2) commitments longer than the two year mandate of band councils should not be transacted through s. 28(2) - See para­graphs 14 to 56, 63, 91.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5

General - Interpretation of legislation - A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in interpreting statutes relating to Indians, ambiguities and 'doubtful ex­pressions' should be resolved in favour of the Indians" - See paragraph 75.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5464

Lands - Surrender of lands - What con­stitutes - [See Crown - Topic 6890 ].

Statutes - Topic 501

Interpretation - Purpose of legislation - Duty to promote object of statute - A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the process of statutory inter­pretation requires that the intention of Parliament be ascertained first by con­sidering the plain meaning of the words used in the statute, and [this court] has determined that where 'the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous, no further step is needed to identify the in­tention of Parliament'. ... However, s. 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, is equally clear that a legislative enactment 'shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its ob­jects'. Thus, it is apparent that a court should only be satisfied with the plain meaning of a statute where that meaning is clear and consistent with a purposive reading of the statute as a whole. Where the plain meaning is ambiguous, unclear or uncertain in scope, more is required." - See paragraphs 72 to 73.

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - Ordinary meaning of words - [See Statutes - Topic 501 ].

Words and Phrases

Period - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "period" as found in the phrase "any other period" in s. 28(2) of the Indian Act, S.C. 1951, c. 29 - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 19].

Sevenoaks, Maidstone & Turnbridge Rail­way Co. v. London, Chatham & Dover Railway Co. (1879), 11 Ch. D. 625, refd to. [para. 20].

Lunenberg (Town) v. Lunenberg (Munici­pality), [1932] 1 D.L.R. 386 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Ellenborough Park, Re, [1956] Ch. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1986] 1 C.N.L.R. 1 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1986] B.C.J. No. 407 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Estevan (Town), [1957] S.C.R. 365, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Bolton, [1975] F.C. 31 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ouimet v. Canada, [1978] 1 F.C. 672 (T.D.), affd., [1979] 1 F.C. 55; 21 N.R. 247 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 32, 80].

Bower, Re (1967), 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 445 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 32, 80].

Cummins v. Keen (1978), 82 D.L.R.(3d) 443 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 343; 190 N.R. 89; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 36, 84].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554; 47 N.R. 132, refd to. [para. 36].

Smith v. R. - see Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General).

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; [1985] 1 C.N.L.R. 120, refd to. [para. 36].

St. Ann's Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd. v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 211, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Devereux, [1965] S.C.R. 567, refd to. [para. 44].

Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 72].

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 218; 3 Admin. L.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 72].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Reve­nue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41; 83 D.T.C. 5041; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 75].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81; [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 46; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 97; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 75].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [para. 81].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 99].

Statutes Noticed:

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, sect. 28, sect. 37, sect. 38, sect. 58 [para. 13].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 12 [para. 73].

Royal Proclamation of 1763, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1, generally [para. 81].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lands and En­vironment Branch Lands, Revenues and Trusts, Land Management and Pro­cedures Manual (May 1988), p. 4 [para. 88].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons, Special Committee Report on Bill No. 79, An Act Respecting Indians, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 3 (April 18, 1951), pp. 78, 80 [paras. 30, 87].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons and Senate, Special Joint Committee Report on the Indian Act, Minutes of Pro­ceedings and Evidence (June 16, 1946), Issue No. 13, pp. 546, 547, 548 [para. 87].

Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Report, Looking Forward, Looking Back (1996), vol. 1, p. 261 [para. 82].

Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française (1976), vol. 5, p. 122 [para. 32].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 131 [para. 74].

Jackson, Paul, The Law of Easements and Profits (1978), p. 189 [para. 21].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989), vol. 11, p. 558 [para. 32].

Reiter, Robert Alan, The Fundamental Principles of Aboriginal Law (1990)(Looseleaf), vol. 2, c. 11, p. 31 [para. 89].

Webster's Third New International Dic­tionary (1986), p. 1680 [para. 32].

Counsel:

Jack Woodward, Patricia Hutchings, Jane Woodward and Judith Sayers, for the appellants;

Gerald Donegan, Q.C., and Robin S. Whittaker, for the respondent, federal Crown;

J. Edward Gouge, Q.C., Peter D. Feldberg and Line Lacasse, for the respondent, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority;

Louise Mandell and Brenda Gaertner, for the intervenor, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs;

George K. MacIntosh, Q.C., and Robert P. Sloman, for the intervenors, B.C. Tel, B.C. Gas Utility Ltd. and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage Dis­trict.

Solicitors of Record:

Woodward & Co., Victoria, B.C., for the appellants;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, federal Crown;

Lawson Lundell Lawson & McIntosh, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority;

Mandell Pinder, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors, B.C. Tel, B.C. Gas Utility Ltd. and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 22, 1997, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Major, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 58;

McLachlin, J. (Cory, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 59 to 99.