Orr et al. v. Alook et al.,

• Judge: Schlosser
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ABQB 86
• Citation: 2013 ABQB 86,(2013), 557 A.R. 193 (QBM),557 AR 193,(2013), 557 AR 193 (QBM),557 A.R. 193
• Date: 04 October 2012
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Orr v. Alook (2013), 557 A.R. 193 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. MR.006

Andrew Orr and Fifth Meridian Enterprises Ltd. (respondents/plaintiffs) v. James Alook, Sharon Laboucan, Emil Houle, William Houle, Garry Noskiye and Peerless Trout First Nation (applicants/defendants)

(1103 20205; 2013 ABQB 86)

Indexed As: Orr et al. v. Alook et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Schlosser, Master

February 5, 2013.

Summary:

The defendants applied for summary dismissal in three parts.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed two parts of the application, but dismissed the third part of the application which sought to strike the "breach of contract" part of the plaintiffs' claim.

Company Law - Topic 1261

Incorporation and organization - Pre-incorporation contracts - General - [See Indians, Inuit and Metis - Topic 2101 ].

Indians, Inuit and Metis - Topic 2101

Nations, tribes and bands - Bands - General - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for compensation earned before the Peerless Trout First Nation was created by Ministerial Order under the Indian Act - The defendants applied for summary dismissal of the claim - They argued that the law of pre-incorporation contracts should apply to excuse the Band from payment - They said that Peerless Trout First Nation could not be sued for any agreements made prior to the Ministerial Order because they did not bind the subsequent entity - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application for summary dismissal of this part of the plaintiffs' claim - The Master concluded that "Though a Band is a distinct legal entity, it is very different from a corporation. Band members are not like shareholders. Band status, under the Indian Act, does not 'create' that group, but instead provides a state-designed and sanctioned mechanism for the administration of that community, as well as an 'interface' for the Crown and others to interact with the community. A Band may have some corporate elements but it lacks the well defined separation of entity and membership. Given this state of the law, it cannot be said that it is plain and obvious that the corporate analogy argument dooms the Plaintiffs' claim for compensation based on a 'pre-incorporation' agreement" - See paragraphs 13 to 52.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Bar to application - Existence of issue to be tried - [See Indians, Inuit and Metis - Topic 2101 ].

Cases Noticed:

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 228; 32 N.R. 163; 39 N.S.R.(2d) 119; 71 A.P.R. 119; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 21].

Kelner v. Baxter (1866), L.R. 2 C.P. 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344; 190 N.R. 89; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 23].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [2001] 4 F.C. 455; 274 N.R. 304; 2001 FCA 67, refd to. [para. 24].

Montana Indian Band v. Canada, [1998] 2 F.C. 3; 140 F.T.R. 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Ross River Dena Council v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] Yukon Cases Uned. 38; [2009] 3 C.N.L.R. 348; 2009 YKSC 38, refd to. [para. 24].

Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Agriculture and Lands) - see Chamberlin v. British Columbia (Minister of Agriculture and Lands).

Chamberlin v. British Columbia (Minister of Agriculture and Lands) (2012), 319 B.C.A.C. 273; 542 W.A.C. 273; 2012 BCCA 193, leave to appeal refused (2012), 443 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Gayton v. Lacasse (2010), 482 A.R. 179; 490 W.A.C. 179; 2010 ABCA 123, refd to. [para. 27].

Tottrup et al. v. Clearwater No. 99 (Municipal District) (2006), 401 A.R. 88; 391 W.A.C. 88; 2006 ABCA 380, refd to. [para. 27].

Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 365 A.R. 1; 43 Alta. L.R.(4th) 41; 2004 ABQB 655, varied (2007), 404 A.R. 349; 394 W.A.C. 349; 66 Alta. L.R.(4th) 243; 2006 ABCA 392; 2007 ABCA 180, affd. [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 28].

Willson et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. E69; 78 B.C.L.R.(4th) 84; 2007 BCSC 1324, refd to. [para. 28].

William v. British Columbia et al. (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 214; 551 W.A.C. 214; 2012 BCCA 285, leave to appeal granted (2013), 446 N.R. 399; 338 B.C.A.C. 320; 577 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Montana Indian Band v. Canada (2006), 287 F.T.R. 159; 2006 FC 261, affd. (2007), 370 N.R. 237; 2007 FCA 218, refd to. [para. 37].

Clarke v. Dunraven (Earl); Ship Satanita, Re, [1897] A.C. 59 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 1].

St. Mary's Indian Band et al. v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 657; 213 N.R. 290; 92 B.C.A.C. 161; 150 W.A.C. 161; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Powley (S.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; 308 N.R. 201; 177 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 44].

Daniels et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2013), 426 F.T.R. 1; 2013 FC 6, refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

Priscilla Kennedy (Davis LLP), for the plaintiffs;

D. Rolf and S. Kligman (Parlee McLaws LLP), for the defendants.

This application was heard in Chambers on October 4, 2012, before Schlosser, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for decision on February 5, 2013.