Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association et al. v. Canada, (2003) 229 F.T.R. 8 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 18, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 229 F.T.R. 8 (TD)

Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Assoc. v. Can. (2003), 229 F.T.R. 8 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.044

Pauktuutit, Inuit Women's Association and Veronica Dewar (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(T-1520-01, T-1521-01, T-1522-01, T-1523-01; 2003 FCT 139)

Indexed As: Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

February 10, 2003.

Summary:

The Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association pursued three applications seeking declarations that the Association was discriminated against when no aboriginal women's groups were consulted in discussions leading up to the 1987 Meech Lake Accord and the 1992 Charlottetown Accord (T-1520-01 and T-1521-01). The Association complained that they should be consulted and funded in discussions on constitutional amendments under s. 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (T-1522-01). The Association also claimed that it was excluded from the founding board of directors of the Federal Aboriginal Health Institute (T-1523-01). The Crown applied to strike out the Association's proceedings.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out the first three applications for mootness, but allowed the fourth application (i.e., T-1523-01) to proceed as it was not so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.

Administrative Law - Topic 4565

Judicial review - Declaratory action - Bars - Academic questions - The Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association pursued two applications seeking declarations that the Association was discriminated against when no aboriginal women's groups were consulted in discussions leading up to the 1987 Meech Lake Accord and the 1992 Charlottetown Accord (T-1520-01 and T-1521-01) - The Association also complained that they should be consulted and funded in discussions on constitutional amendments under s. 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (T-1522-01) - The Crown applied to strike out the applications on the ground of moootness - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application to strike - The first two events took place and were concluded well before the judicial review proceeding was initially commenced - The third proceeding had not taken place and was not in the offing - See paragraphs 13 to 23.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See Administrative Law - 4565 ].

Practice - Topic 5667

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - Bars - Academic questions - [See Administrative Law - Topic 4565 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.

Al-Mhamad v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission et al., [2003] N.R. Uned. 2 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Labbé v. Létourneau, J., et al. (1997), 128 F.T.R. 291 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Somalia Inquiry Commission - see Labbé v. Létourneau, J., et al.

Narvey et al. v. McNamara (1997), 140 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Information Commissioner (Can.) et al., [1998] 1 F.C. 337; 135 F.T.R. 254 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (1997), 126 F.T.R. 229 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Fogal et al. v. Canada et al. (1999), 167 F.T.R. 266 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 258 N.R. 97 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Jawanda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 392; 14 Imm. L.R.(3d) 151 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 12].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 13].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 441, refd to. [para. 14].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 495, refd to. [para. 14].

Montana Indian Band et al. v. Canada, [1991] 2 F.C. 30; 120 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Administration de pilotage des Laurentides v. Pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central Inc. (1993), 74 F.T.R. 185 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General) (1978), 93 D.L.R.(3d) 148 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Westray Mine Inquiry - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

John Deere Plow Co. v. Wharton, [1915] A.C. 330 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al. (1992), 145 N.R. 253; 97 D.L.R.(4th) 548 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 171; 57 F.T.R. 115 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Moldevenau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 235 N.R. 192 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Lominadze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 143 F.T.R. 310 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Chopra v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (1999), 168 F.T.R. 273 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (1997 Looseleaf), c. 4, pp. 4-7, 4-11 [para. 17].

Hudson, Declaratory Judgments and Theoretical Cases: The Reality of the Dispute (1977), 3 Dal. L.J. 706, generally [para. 15].

Counsel:

Teressa Nahanee, for the plaintiffs;

John S. Tyhurst, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McIvor Nahanee Law Corporation, Merritt, British Columbia, for the plaintiffs;

Morris A. Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This matter was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 18, 2001, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 10, 2003.