Pokue v. Innu Nation et al., (2014) 452 F.T.R. 160 (FC)

• Judge: Rennie, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 16, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 452 F.T.R. 160 (FC);2014 FC 325

Pokue v. Innu Nation (2014), 452 F.T.R. 160 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.023

Simon Pokue (applicant) v. Innu Nation, Prote Poker, Jeremy Andrew, Agathe Rich, Nora Mistenapeo, Marie Agathe Riche, Clarence Nui, Peter Pasteen and Edward Piwas (respondents)

(T-1957-12; 2014 FC 325; 2014 CF 325)

Indexed As: Pokue v. Innu Nation et al.

Federal Court

Rennie, J.

April 3, 2014.

Summary:

Pokue applied for judicial review, seeking to set aside the results of an election for the offices of Grand Chief and Deputy Grand Chief of the Innu Nation. The Innu Nation brought a motion to strike the judicial review application. The Innu Nation contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the application for judicial review of the election of the Innu Nation because the Innu Nation was not a "federal board, commission or other tribunal."

The Federal Court dismissed the motion to strike.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6246 ].

Courts - Topic 4054

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Indians, Inuit and Métis - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6246 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6211

Government - Associations and corporations - General - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6246 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6246

Government - Elections - Setting aside elections - Pokue applied for judicial review, seeking to set aside the results of an election for the offices of Grand Chief and Deputy Grand Chief of the Innu Nation, held in September 2012 - The Innu Nation brought a motion to strike the judicial review application - The Innu Nation contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the application for judicial review of the election of the Innu Nation because the Innu Nation was not a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" - The foundation of the Innu Nation's argument was its legal status as a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act - In consequence, it said that the decision sought for review (the election result of September 25, 2012) was entirely a private matter - The Federal Court dismissed the motion to strike - The Innu Nation, in its holding of an election, was within the judicial review jurisdiction of the Federal Court - While the Innu Nation had certain, limited, technical attributes that were contrary to that conclusion, in substance, its status, mandate and conduct brought it within the meaning of a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" in s. 2 of the Federal Courts Act - The Innu Nation, in the holding of its election, was exercising public powers and it fell within the definition of s. 2.

Cases Noticed:

Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority et al. (2011), 426 N.R. 131; 2011 FCA 347, appld. [para. 9].

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. 11].

JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 91; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 11].

DRL Vacations Ltd. v. Halifax Port Authority, [2006] 3 F.C.R. 516; 274 F.T.R. 293; 2005 FC 860, refd to. [para. 14].

Gestion Complexe Cousineau (1989) Inc. v. Canada (Ministre des Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux), [1995] 2 F.C. 694; 184 N.R. 260 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Elders of Mitchikinabikok Inik (Algonquin of Barriere Lake) v. Algonquins of Barriere Lake Customary Council - see Ratt et al. v. Matchewan et al.

Ratt et al. v. Matchewan et al., [2010] 2 C.N.L.R. 275; 362 F.T.R. 285; 2010 FC 160, refd to. [para. 22].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; 327 N.R. 53; 206 B.C.A.C. 52; 338 W.A.C. 52; 2004 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 28].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388; 342 N.R. 82; 2005 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 28].

Long Lake Cree Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1020 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Sparvier v. Cowessess Indian Band No. 73 et al., [1993] 3 F.C. 175; 66 F.T.R. 266 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Canatonquin v. Gabriel, [1980] 2 F.C. 792 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Lonechild v. Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations et al. (2011), 382 Sask.R. 78; 2011 SKQB 315, dist. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2 [para. 15].

Counsel:

J. Michael Cabot, for the applicant;

Margaret (Maggie) E. Wente, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Gittens & Associates, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, for the applicant;

Olthuis, Kleer, Townshend LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This motion was heard on January 16, 2014, at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, before Rennie, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 3, 2014.