Polson v. Long Point First Nation Election Committee et al., 2007 FC 983

• Judge: Frenette, D.J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 20, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2007 FC 983;(2007), 331 F.T.R. 25 (FC)

Polson v. Long Point First Nation Election Com. (2007), 331 F.T.R. 25 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.009

Gordon Polson (applicant) v. Long Point First Nation Committee (LPFNEC) - Ms. Jessica Polson, in her capacity as President, Ms. Veronica Polson, in her capacity as Electoral Officer, and Ms. Aprile Wabie, in her capacity as Electoral Officer (respondents)

(T-603-06; 2007 FC 983)

Indexed As: Polson v. Long Point First Nation Election Committee et al.

Federal Court

Frenette, D.J.

October 1, 2007.

Summary:

The applicant wrote to the Long Point First Nation Election Committee (the Election Committee) to contest the validity of a general election held in February 2006 under the newly revised 2006 Customs for Elections. The applicant asked for an appeal, arguing that the revision process for the Customs for Elections was not properly followed and showed bias. The Election Committee denied the appeal as not legitimate. The applicant sought judicial review. The Election Committee was designated as respondent.

The Federal Court dismissed the application as being directed against the incorrect party and as being out of time.

Administrative Law - Topic 3347

Judicial review - Practice - Parties (incl. standing) - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6247 ].

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6247 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6238

Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Judicial review - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6247 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6245.9

Government - Elections - Validity - The applicant wrote to the Long Point First Nation Election Committee (the Election Committee) to contest the validity of a general election held in February 2006 under the newly revised 2006 Customs for Elections - The applicant asked for an appeal - The Election Committee denied it as not legitimate - The applicant sought judicial review, alleging mainly a breach in the amendment process of the Customs for Elections which consequently vitiated the February 2006 election - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court discussed the Customs for Elections and the amendment (or revision) process and stated as follows: (1) the Election Committee's decision should only be reviewed if patently unreasonable (see paragraphs 24 and 25); (2) the 2006 Customs for Elections, resulting from a revision of the 2002 Customs for Elections, were properly adopted (see paragraphs 26 to 33); (3) the Election Committee did not err in denying the applicant's appeal (see paragraphs 34 to 39); and (4) the applicant was owed basic procedural fairness but there was no breach (see paragraphs 40 to 51).

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6246

Government - Elections - Setting aside elections - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6247 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6247

Government - Elections - Appeal tribunals (incl. standard of review) - The applicant wrote to the Long Point First Nation Election Committee (the Election Committee) to contest the validity of a general election held in February 2006 under the newly revised 2006 Customs for Elections - The applicant asked for an appeal, arguing that the revision process for the Customs for Elections was not properly followed and showed bias - The Election Committee denied the appeal as not legitimate - The applicant sought judicial review - The Election Committee was designated as respondent - The Federal Court dismissed the application where the Election Committee was the incorrect respondent - The Appeal Board that the Election Committee could have appointed only had power to invalidate the election of a candidate and call another election - It did not have jurisdiction respecting the revision process of the Customs for Elections - The application should have been directed against the Chief and the Council, which was a "Federal Board, Commission or other tribunal", and the Federal Court would have had jurisdiction to hear it - See paragraphs 16 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation v. Atkinson et al., [2003] 2 C.N.L.R. 345; 228 F.T.R. 167; 2003 FCT 168, refd to. [para. 19].

Rider v. Ear, [1979] 4 C.N.L.R. 119 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Gabriel v. Canatonguin, [1980] 2 F.C. 792 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Trotchie v. R. et al., [1981] 2 C.N.L.R. 147 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Mohawk of Kanesatake v. Mohawk of Kanesatake (Council) - see Francis et al. v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake.

Francis et al. v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake et al. (2003), 227 F.T.R. 161; 2003 FCT 115, consd. [para. 21].

Giroux v. Swan River First Nation et al. (2006), 288 F.T.R. 55; 2006 FC 285, modified (2007), 361 N.R. 360; 2007 FCA 108, consd. [para. 24].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 25].

Awashish et al. v. Opitciwan Atikamekw Indian Band et al., [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 827; 2007 FC 765, consd. [para. 31].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 53].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

Long Point First Nation, 2002 Customs for Elections, sect. 1.0 [para. 28]; sect. 1.9 [para. 29]; sect. 7.2, sect. 7.3(A) [para. 34]; sect. 15.1 [para. 27].

Long Point First Nation, 2006 Customs for Elections, sect. 7.1, sect. 7.2, sect. 7.3 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Gordon Polson, on his own behalf;

Paul Dionne, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Dionne, Gertler, Schulze, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 20, 2007, by Frenette, D.J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on October 1, 2007.