Pruden v. Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal et al., (2014) 580 A.R. 306

• Judge: Watson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 04, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 580 A.R. 306;2014 ABCA 288

Pruden v. Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal (2014), 580 A.R. 306; 620 W.A.C. 306 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. SE.041

Walter Pruden (applicant/appellant) v. Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal and Kikino Métis Settlement (respondents)

(1403-0153-AC; 2014 ABCA 288)

Indexed As: Pruden v. Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Watson, J.A.

September 10, 2014.

Summary:

Hogensen had Métis title to a parcel of land from which Pruden, who was allegedly Hogenson's brother by adoption, harvested hay. Hogenson died in 2006 without having filed estate directions for the land. In July 2008, the Kikino Métis Settlement assumed land trustee status for the land under s. 7.9(3) of the Métis Settlements General Council Land Policy. Kikino allowed Pruden to continue to harvest hay on the land until 2012, when it informed Pruden that it was going to fence the land. Pruden asked Kikino to post the land under the Land Policy so that he could apply for it. Kikino denied the application. Pruden appealed to the Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal, which found that the appeal was out of time. The Tribunal declined to extend the time to appeal under s. 202 of the Métis Settlements Act. Pruden sought leave to appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 8844

Boards and tribunals - Capacity or status - To appear on statutory appeal when its decision is under review - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7

Government - Métis Nation - Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal - Hogensen had Métis title to a parcel of land from which Pruden, who was allegedly Hogenson's brother by adoption, harvested hay - Hogenson died in 2006 without having filed estate directions for the land - In July 2008, the Kikino Métis Settlement assumed land trustee status for the land under s. 7.9(3) of the Métis Settlements General Council Land Policy - Kikino allowed Pruden to continue to harvest hay on the land until 2012, when it informed Pruden that it was going to fence the land - Pruden asked Kikino to post the land under the Land Policy so that he could apply for it - Kikino denied the application - Pruden appealed to the Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal, which found that the appeal was out of time - The Tribunal declined to extend the time to appeal under s. 202 of the Métis Settlements Act - Pruden sought leave to appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., discussed the standard of review, stating that "[a]n appeal from a decision of the Tribunal, by operation of s. 204, can only be taken on a question of law or jurisdiction. Furthermore, the question of law or jurisdiction must be important enough to engage the intervention of a panel of this Court in order to provide guidance not merely in the case here but more generally for the operations of the Tribunal, or for the broader public interest in the future. In practical terms, that usually means that the case cannot just be about the specific interest of a particular person." - See paragraphs 19 and 20.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7

Government - Métis Nation - Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal - Hogensen had Métis title to a parcel of land from which Pruden, who was allegedly Hogenson's brother by adoption, harvested hay - Hogenson died in 2006 without having filed estate directions for the land - In July 2008, the Kikino Métis Settlement assumed land trustee status for the land under s. 7.9(3) of the Métis Settlements General Council Land Policy - Kikino allowed Pruden to continue to harvest hay on the land until 2012, when it informed Pruden that it was going to fence the land - Pruden asked Kikino to post the land under the Land Policy so that he could apply for it - Kikino denied the application - Pruden appealed to the Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal, which found that the appeal was out of time - The Tribunal declined to extend the time to appeal under s. 202 of the Métis Settlements Act - Pruden sought leave to appeal - Although Kikino had notice of the application, the only party other than Pruden to appear was the Tribunal, itself - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., discussed the role of the Tribunal as a party to the application - Here, the "slight excess of the participatory rights of the Tribunal was harmless" - See paragraphs 21 to 27.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6240.7

Government - Métis Nation - Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal - Hogensen had Métis title to a parcel of land from which Pruden, who was allegedly Hogenson's brother by adoption, harvested hay - Hogenson died in 2006 without having filed estate directions for the land - In July 2008, the Kikino Métis Settlement assumed land trustee status for the land under s. 7.9(3) of the Métis Settlements General Council Land Policy - Kikino allowed Pruden to continue to harvest hay on the land until 2012, when it informed Pruden that it was going to fence the land - Pruden asked Kikino to post the land under the Land Policy so that he could apply for it - Kikino denied the application - Pruden appealed to the Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal, which found that the appeal was out of time - The Tribunal declined to extend the time to appeal under s. 202 of the Métis Settlements Act - Pruden sought leave to appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., dismissed the application - The extension of time was within the Tribunal's discretion - The presumption of reasonableness applied - The decision was reasonable on its face - There was no arguable error of law that was important to others than Pruden - See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

Peavine Métis Settlement et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [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. 3].

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

St. Paul No. 19 (County) v. Belland (2006), 380 A.R. 324; 363 W.A.C. 324; 2006 ABCA 55, refd to. [para. 5].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

Isbister v. Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 118; 2014 ABCA 193, refd to. [para. 20].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 20].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 20].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al. (2014), 580 A.R. 127; 83 C.E.L.R.(3d) 181; 2014 ABCA 231, refd to. [para. 20].

Beier et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Vermilion River (County) (2009), 457 A.R. 191; 457 W.A.C. 191; 2009 ABCA 151, refd to. [para. 22].

Areva Resources Canada Inc. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Energy and Resources) (2013), 417 Sask.R. 182; 580 W.A.C. 182; 365 D.L.R.(4th) 99, 2013 SKCA 79, leave to appeal refused [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 389, refd to. [para. 22].

Sihota v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 164; 567 W.A.C. 164; 2013 ABCA 125, refd to. [para. 22].

1447743 Alberta Ltd. v. Calgary (City) et al. (2011), 502 A.R. 330; 517 W.A.C. 330; 2011 ABCA 84, refd to. [para. 22].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al. (2006), 230 B.C.A.C. 236; 380 W.A.C. 236; 274 D.L.R.(4th) 523; 2006 BCCA 404, refd to. [para. 23].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 288; 531 W.A.C. 288; 343 D.L.R.(4th) 432; 2011 BCCA 455, affd. [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 23].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449, refd to. [para. 24].

Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP et al. (2008), 432 A.R. 188; 424 W.A.C. 188; 2008 ABCA 160, refd to. [para. 24].

Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 502 A.R. 110; 517 W.A.C. 110; 2011 ABCA 94, leave to appeal refused (2011), 429 N.R. 399; 533 A.R. 402; 557 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers', Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6; 397 N.R. 232; 2010 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Quadrini (2010), 409 N.R. 141; 2010 FCA 246, refd to. [para. 25].

Jones' Masonry Ltd. v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 900 (2013), 408 N.B.R.(2d) 163; 1058 A.P.R. 163; 364 D.L.R.(4th) 275 2013 NBCA 50, leave to appeal refused [2013] N.R. TBEd. Motion 487 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Agrium Vanscoy Potash Operations v. United Steel Workers, Local 7552 et al., [2014] 8 W.W.R. 629; 442 Sask.R. 42; 616 W.A.C. 42; 2014 SKCA 79, refd to. [para. 25].

Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd. et al. v. Alberta Utilities Commission et al. (2013), 556 A.R. 376; 584 W.A.C. 376; 2013 ABCA 310, refd to. [para. 26].

Québec (Ville de) v. Association des pompiers professionnels de Québec inc, 2013 QCCA 1929, refd to. [para. 26].

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 623; 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 28].

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, addendum 157 N.R. 372; 66 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 28].

East Prairie Métis Settlement v. Hudson, [2013] A.M.S.A.T.D. No. 4, refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

S.A. Beaver, for the applicant/appellant;

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

No appearance for the respondent, Kikino Métis Settlement.

This application was heard on September 4, 2014, by Watson, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for decision on September 10, 2014.