Peavine Metis Settlement et al. v. Whitehead et al., (2015) 612 A.R. 25

• Judge: Wakeling, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 09, 2015
• Citations: (2015), 612 A.R. 25;2015 ABCA 366

Peavine Metis Settlement v. Whitehead (2015), 612 A.R. 25; 662 W.A.C. 25 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.126

Peavine Metis Settlement, East Prairie Metis Settlement and Elizabeth Metis Settlement (applicants) v. Lyle Whitehead, Brandon Laboucane, Lester Calaheson, Gift Lake Metis Settlement, Registrar of the Metis Settlements Land Registry, Metis Settlements General Council and Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal (respondents)

(1503-0174-AC; 2015 ABCA 366)

Indexed As: Peavine Metis Settlement et al. v. Whitehead et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wakeling, J.A.

November 24, 2015.

Summary:

Three Metis Settlements (the applicants) applied for leave to appeal a decision of the Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal. The decision determined who could cast ballots on the merits of granting membership in the Gift Lake Metis Settlement to respondents Whitehead and Laboucane. The applicants were not parties to the proceedings before the Appeal Tribunal. The Metis Settlements Act was silent on who had the right to appeal a decision of an Appeal Tribunal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application. The applicants did not have the standing to seek leave to appeal.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7

Government - Metis Nation - Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., held that the applicants did not have the standing to seek leave to appeal a decision of the Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal - The decision determined the status of two of the respondents whose names appeared on the settlement members list - The applicants were not parties to the proceedings before the Appeal Tribunal - The Metis Settlements Act was silent on who had the right to appeal a decision of an Appeal Tribunal - The general rule applied; i.e., that a nonparty could not appeal - There were no extraordinary circumstances to justify granting the applicants status to apply for leave - The Appeal Tribunal's decision did not compel the applicants to do or refrain from doing anything - Nor did it directly affect important interests of the applicants - The Appeal Tribunal would not have made the applicants parties in the proceedings before it - See paragraphs 63 to 66.

Practice - Topic 8877

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Grounds for refusal to grant leave - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7 ].

Practice - Topic 8893

Appeals - Parties - Standing to appeal - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7 ].

Cases Noticed:

Peavine Metis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2009), 457 A.R. 297; 457 W.A.C. 297; 2009 ABCA 239, revd. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 670; 418 N.R. 101; 505 A.R. 1; 522 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 1, footnotes 3, 5].

Cunningham v. Alberta - see Peavine Metis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

Gauchier v. Cunningham (2014), 584 A.R. 324; 623 W.A.C. 324; 2014 ABCA 356, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 6].

Gauchier v. Registrar, Metis Settlements Land Registry - see Gauchier v. Cunningham.

Gift Lake Métis Settlement et al. v. Minister of Aboriginal Relations et al., [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.074; 2015 ABQB 654, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 8].

Iron v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety), [1993] 3 W.W.R. 309; 107 Sask.R. 297 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 17].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 456, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

Chagnon v. Normand (1889), 16 S.C.R. 661, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

Dyck, Re (1999), 244 A.R. 193; 209 W.A.C. 193; 1999 ABCA 254, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

Dyck v. Laidlaw - see Dyck, Re.

Farm Credit Corp. v. Valley Beef Producers Co-operative (2002), 218 D.L.R. 86 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

R. v. Hamilton (E.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 363; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

R. v. E.F.H. - see R. v. Hamilton (E.).

Charkaoui, Re, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; 358 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. and Association de conseillers scolaires francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 31].

Deacon v. Kemp Manure Spreader Co. (1907), 15 Ont. L.R. 160 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 32].

R. v. N.M.P., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 857; 375 N.R. 347; 2000 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 32].

A.A. v. B.B. et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 124; 368 N.R. 384; 231 O.A.C. 395; 2007 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 43].

Alliance for Marriage and Family v. A.A. - see A.A. v. B.B. et al.

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al. (2008), 429 A.R. 51; 421 W.A.C. 51; 2008 ABCA 36, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 43].

Boyd v. JBS Foods Canada Inc. et al., [2015] A.R. Uned. 55; 2015 ABCA 120, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 43].

Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al., [2002] 10 W.W.R. 70; 303 A.R. 209; 273 W.A.C. 209; 2002 ABCA 112, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 43].

Sklar Estate, Re (2011), 505 A.R. 68; 522 W.A.C. 68; 2011 ABCA 26, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 46].

Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP et al. (2008), 432 A.R. 188; 424 W.A.C. 188; 292 D.L.R.(4th) 7540; 2008 ABCA 160, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 46].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al. (2008), 429 A.R. 51; 421 W.A.C. 51; 2008 ABCA 36, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 46].

Burleson v. Coastal Recreation Inc. (1978), 572 F2d 509 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 46].

Kristian Equipment Ltd. v. Urano Rentals Ltd. and Onishenko (1989), 74 Sask.R. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 46].

Bender v. Williamsport Area School District (1986), 475 U.S. 534, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 46].

Colangelo et al. v. Mississauga (City); Morencie v. Windsor (City) et al. (1989), 104 N.R. 298; 37 O.A.C. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 47].

Iron et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) et al., [1993] 3 W.W.R. 308; 106 Sask.R. 247 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 47].

Homestake Mining Co. v. Texasgulf Potash Co. (1977), 76 D.L.R.(3d) 521 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 49].

Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada v. Fleming & Talbot, [1947] 1 D.L.R. 184 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 49].

Goodere v. White (1893), 15 P.R. 433 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 49].

Bassel's Lunch Ltd. v. Kick, [1936] 4 D.L.R. 106 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 49].

Johnston and C.H.D. Investments Inc. v. Prince Edward Island (1988), 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 219; 229 A.P.R. 219 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 49].

Houg Alberta Ltd. v. 417034 Alberta Ltd. (1991), 117 A.R. 196; 2 W.A.C. 196 (C.A. Ch.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 50].

Youngs, In Re (1885), 30 Ch.D. 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 51].

Markham, In Re (1880), 16 Ch.D. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 51].

Wood v. Madras Irrigation and Canal Co. (1883), 23 Ch.D. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 51].

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; 434 N.R. 257; 325 B.C.A.C. 1; 553 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 54].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 54].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice) and Canada (Minister of Finance), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 54].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 54].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 54].

Reese et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) et al. (1992), 123 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 54].

Diamond v. Charles (1986), 476 U.S. 54, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 55].

Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Alberta (Utilities Commission) et al. (2011), 513 A.R. 387; 530 W.A.C. 387; 2011 ABCA 302, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 55].

Alberta (Minister of Justice) v. Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 449; 2004 ABCA 418, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 58].

Elizabeth Metis Settlement v. Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal - see Alberta (Minister of Justice) v. Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal et al.

Statutes Noticed:

Metis Settlements Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-14, sect. 204(1), sect. 205(a) [para. 36].

Counsel:

R.B. Hajduk, for the applicants;

P. Seaman, for the respondent, Gift Lake Metis Settlement;

K.N. Lambrecht, Q.C., for the respondent, Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal;

J.R. Speer, for the respondent, Registrar of the Metis Settlements Land Registry;

Lyle Whitehead, Brandon Laboucane and Lester Calaheson, respondents, in person;

Metis Settlements General Council (no appearance, not represented).

This application for leave to appeal was heard on September 9, 2015, before Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision and reasons, filed at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 24, 2015.