Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.031

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.031;2015 FC 836

Samson Indian Band v. Can., [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.031

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.031

Chief Victor Buffalo acting on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Samson Indian Nation and Band, and The Samson Indian Band and Nation (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and The Minister of Finance (applicants/defendants)

(T-2022-89)

Chief John Ermineskin, Lawrence Wildcat, Gordon Lee, Art Littlechild, Maurice Wolfe, Curtis Ermineskin, Gerry Ermineskin, Earl Ermineskin, Rick Wolfe, Ken Cutarm, Brian Lee, Lester Fraynn, the elected Chief and Councilors of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of Theermineskin Indian Band and Nation (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and The Minister of Finance (applicants/defendants)

(T-1254-92; 2015 FC 836)

Indexed As: Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

Federal Court

Russell, J.

July 9, 2015.

Summary:

The respective statements of claim in these two actions were filed on September 29, 1989 (T-1254-92) and May 28, 1992 (T-1254-92). The ongoing litigation concerned oil royalties and taxes levied on oil produced on a First Nations Reserve in Alberta. The plaintiffs were two First Nations with interests in the Reserve. A portion of the claims related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985. Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that those claims were time-barred by both statutory and equitable limitation periods. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Constitutional Question with regard to the applicable limitations legislation.

The Federal Court granted the Crown's motion. The plaintiffs' claims related to the regulated price regime issue were time-barred by the six-year limitation period in s. 4 of Alberta's Limitation of Actions Act, referentially incorporated under s. 39 of the Federal Courts Act.

Crown - Topic 4082

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Defences, bars or exclusions - Limitation of actions - The respective statements of claim in these two actions were filed on September 29, 1989 and May 28, 1992 - The ongoing litigation concerned oil royalties and taxes levied on oil produced on a First Nations Reserve in Alberta - The plaintiffs were two First Nations with interests in the Reserve - A portion of the claims related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985 - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that those claims were time-barred because: (a) the applicable limitation period was six years under Alberta's Limitations of Actions Act, referentially incorporated under s. 39 of the Federal Courts Act; and (b) the plaintiffs knew of the facts giving rise to their claims more than six years prior to filing their respective statements of claim - The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Constitutional Question with regard to the applicable limitations legislation - The Federal Court granted the Crown's motion - The plaintiffs' claims related to the regulated price regime issue were time-barred by the six-year limitation period in s. 4 of Alberta's Limitation of Actions Act, referentially incorporated under s. 39 of the Federal Courts Act.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - General - Limitation of actions - The plaintiffs' Aboriginal claims related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985, pursuant to the "made-in-Canada" oil price program - The plaintiffs based their monetary claims upon a breach of trust or fiduciary duty in relation to a constitutionally-protected treaty right - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claims were time-barred - The plaintiffs suggested that a monetary claim ceased to be time-barred if it was accompanied by a claim for declaration - The Federal Court characterized the claims as concerning breach of fiduciary duty and equitable relief, and held that such claims were subject to a limitations defence - "[I]t seems clear to me that limitations legislation, as well as the principles of laches and acquiescence, are applicable to claims against Canada even where the rights at stake are constitutionally-protected treaty and Aboriginal rights ... I cannot find a recognized exception in the governing jurisprudence for constitutionally-derived claims of the kind at issue in this motion." - See paragraphs 121 to 123.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - General - Limitation of actions - A portion of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal claims in two actions related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985, pursuant to the "made-in-Canada" oil price program - The respective claims were filed on September 29, 1989 and May 28, 1992 - The plaintiffs based their claims upon a breach of trust or fiduciary duty in relation to a constitutionally-protected treaty right - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that the program-related claims were time-barred - The statutory six-year limitation period began to run when the plaintiffs discovered the cause of action - The Federal Court held that the claims were brought well beyond the applicable six-year period, and that a continuing breach was not applicable to the claims - "In this context, discovered means when the Plaintiffs knew all the facts they needed to know to commence their claims for the losses they suffered as a result of the indirect impact of the Program. ... [T]he evidence is clear that the Plaintiffs knew everything they needed to bring their Program-based claims during the 1970s, that they were well-advised, and that they continued to examine the impact of the Program and seek a political solution that, in the end, they were told was not available to them. They considered legal action but, for some reason that they have not explained, decided not to pursue it until these actions were commenced. ... The alleged breach may have had continuing monetary consequences but, once the Program took effect, legal action was an option that they could have pursued immediately" - See paragraphs 168 to 188.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 17

General principles - Continuing acts and continuing losses - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1905

Actions - General - Breach of fiduciary duty - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7528

Actions against the Crown - When limitation period commences - Continuing injury or damage - [See second Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7604

Actions against the Crown - In the Federal Court of Canada - Applicable law - A portion of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal claims in two actions related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985 - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that those claims were time-barred - The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Constitutional Question with regard to the applicable limitations legislation - Canada's position was that both causes of action arose in Alberta so that, in accordance with s. 39 of the Federal Courts Act, the claims were governed by Alberta limitations legislation, not the limitations law of Ontario - The Federal Court held that the applicable limitation period was six years under s. 4 of Alberta's Limitation of Actions Act (LAA) - The claims involved an alleged breach of the fiduciary relationship between the plaintiffs and Canada - Alberta clearly had "the most substantial connection" - The claims were about royalties that the plaintiffs asserted they should have been credited with for oil and gas production on their Reserve lands in Alberta; the plaintiffs and the Crown agency were located in Alberta; and the land from which the oil was taken was located in Alberta - The applicable period was "within 6 years of the discovery of the cause of action" under s. 4(1)(e) of the LAA - Even if the claim was characterized as a breach of trust, the limitation period provided by s. 4(1)(e) remained the most advantageous to the plaintiffs - See paragraphs 137 to 167.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - The ongoing litigation concerned oil royalties and taxes levied on oil produced on a First Nations Reserve - The plaintiffs were two First Nations with interests in the Reserve - A portion of the plaintiffs' claims related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985 - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that those claims were time-barred - The Federal Court stated that "[i]t should always be borne in mind that in deciding whether summary judgment based upon the expiry of a limitation period is appropriate, the Court is not pronouncing upon the merits of the underlying claims. In the present case, the Plaintiffs may well have legitimate complaints, in both fact and law, about the impact of the Program [the "made-in-Canada" oil price program] upon their royalty entitlement and Canada's handling of the royalties arising from oil and gas extraction on the Plaintiffs' Reserves. But the law of limitations provides that, generally speaking, even a legitimate claim must be brought within a prescribed period of time unless, of course, the claim is one that is not subject to a limitations defence. It may be necessary at times to look at the merits in order to understand what is at stake in these motions and the role that a limitations defence should play given the nature of the claims in question but, in the end, the Court is deciding whether or not there is a genuine issue for trial on the limitations defence and not whether the claims have merit." - See paragraph 89.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - A portion of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal claims related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985, pursuant to the "made-in-Canada" oil price program - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was no genuine issue to be tried with respect to whether the program-related claims were time-barred - The parties had different views on the applicability of Hyrniak v. Mauldin (2014) (S.C.C.) to the proceeding - Following the hearing, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in Manitoba v. Canada, (2015) which provided guidance on the applicability of Hryniak to the summary judgment procedure under the Federal Courts Rules - The Federal Court stated that "[t]he governing jurisprudence clearly establishes that, in order to succeed on this motion, Canada must demonstrate to the Court that there is no genuine issue for trial which, in this instance, means no genuine issue regarding the existence and application of a limitations defence to time-bar the Program-related claims" - See paragraphs 92 and 93.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - A portion of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal claims in two actions related to the federal government's regulation of Canadian oil prices from October 1, 1973 until June 1, 1985, pursuant to the "made-in-Canada" oil price program - The respective claims were filed on September 29, 1989 and May 28, 1992 - Canada moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claims were time-barred - One of the primary issues was whether the oil price program aspect of the action could, or should, be dealt with by way of summary judgment rather than proceeding to trial - The Federal Court held that it saw nothing in the record "to suggest that summary judgment in this motion is unfair or somehow inappropriate, provided the necessary facts are established and I can apply the law to those facts. I think the facts have been established and the law is clear." - See paragraph 208.

Practice - Topic 5717

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - For part of claim - [See Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 18].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 365 A.R. 1; 2004 ABQB 655, refd to. [para. 19].

Papaschase Indian Band (Descendants of) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

Abbott et al. v. Canada (2005), 268 F.T.R. 300; 2005 FC 163, affd. (2006), 354 N.R. 331; 2006 FCA 342, leave to appeal refused (2007), 370 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Abbott et al. v. Canada, [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 896; 2007 FC 1338, refd to. [para. 20].

Tacan et al. v. Canada (2005), 261 F.T.R. 161; 2005 FC 385, refd to. [para. 20].

Perrot v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (2009), 291 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 249; 898 A.P.R. 249; 2009 NLTD 172, refd to. [para. 20].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band (2002), 297 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 21].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344; 190 N.R. 89, refd to. [para. 21].

Kruger v. R., [1986] 1 FC 3, (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 139 O.A.C. 201; 51 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2001), 284 N.R. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 22].

Peepeekisis Indian Band et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2013), 448 N.R. 202; 2013 FCA 191, refd to. [para. 22].

Ermineskin Indian Band and Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2006), 357 N.R. 1; 2006 FCA 415, refd to. [para. 23].

Stoney Tribal Council v. PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd. et al. (2000), 261 A.R. 289; 225 W.A.C. 289; 2000 ABCA 209, refd to. [para. 23].

Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94; 300 N.R. 321; 2003 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 24].

Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. (2004), 246 F.T.R. 290; 2004 FC 190, refd to. [para. 24].

Austec Electronic Systems Ltd. v. Mark IV Industries Ltd. et al. (2001), 285 A.R. 154; 2001 ABQB 349, refd to. [para. 25].

Ermineskin Indian Band and Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 222; 384 N.R. 203; 2009 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 27].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 30].

Luscar Ltd. and Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (1994), 162 A.R. 35; 83 W.A.C. 35; 1994 ABCA 356, refd to. [para. 30].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Huang et al. v. Drinkwater et al. (2005), 372 A.R. 336; 2005 ABQB 40, refd to. [para. 32].

Alberta Municipal Retired Police Officers' Mutual Benefit Society et al. v. Alberta et al. (2010), 504 A.R. 41; 2010 ABQB 458, refd to. [para. 32].

James H. Meek Trust et al. v. San Juan Resources Inc. et al. (2005), 376 A.R. 202; 360 W.A.C. 202; 2005 ABCA 448, refd to. [para. 33].

Epcor Power L.P. v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd. (2010), 495 A.R. 173; 2010 ABQB 463, affd. (2010), 499 A.R. 193; 514 W.A.C. 193; 2010 ABCA 378, refd to. [para. 33].

Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014), 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 35].

The Source Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2012), 416 F.T.R. 227; 2012 FC 966, refd to. [para. 37].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., [2003] 1 F.C. 242; 291 N.R. 96; 2002 FCA 210, refd to. [para. 37].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 39].

United States of America v. Dion (1986), 476 U.S. 734, refd to. [para. 39].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; 246 N.R. 83; 178 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 549 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 200 N.R. 189; 79 B.C.A.C. 161; 129 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 40].

Taylor v. Davies, [1920] 1 W.W.R. 683; 51 D.L.R. 75 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Outlook (Town), [1924] 3 W.W.R. 494 (SKQB), refd to. [para. 42].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

St. Mary's Indian Band et al. v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 657; 213 N.R. 290; 92 B.C.A.C. 161; 150 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

Mackey Estate v. Mackey (1986), 24 E.T.R. 174 (S.C.J.), refd to. [para. 45].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 45].

Switzer v. Switzer (1995), 176 A.R. 150 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Semiahmoo Indian Band et al. v. Canada, [1998] 1 F.C. 3; 215 N.R. 241; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 523 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Chippewas of Arnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [1000] O.J. No. 1406 (S.C.J.), refd to. [para. 46].

Chaba v. Chaba (1995), 166 A.R. 392 (Q.B.M.), refd to. [para. 47].

Soar v. Ashwell, [1893] Q.B. 390 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Gregory v. Torquay Corporation, [1911] 2 K.B. 556 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Seidel v. Kerr et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 284; 299 W.A.C. 284; 2003 ABCA 267, refd to. [para. 48].

Century Services Inc. v. LeRoy, [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 702; 2014 BCSC 702 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

N.J. v. Aitken (Estate) et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 419; 2014 BCSC 419, refd to. [para. 52].

Strata Plan BCS 1348, Owners v. Travelers Guarantee Co. of Canada, [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1468; 2014 BCSC 1468, refd to. [para. 52].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Savic (2014), 456 F.T.R. 38; 2014 FC 523, refd to. [para. 52].

International Sausage House Ltd. v. Hammer Estate et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1442; 2014 BCSC 1442, refd to. [para. 52].

MacNeil et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [2004] 3 F.C.R. 3; 316 N.R. 349; 2004 FCA 50, refd to. [para. 53].

Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd. S.A. et al., [1996] 2 F.C. 853; 111 F.T.R. 189 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 53].

Potskin v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 928; 2006 FC 1469, refd to. [para. 53].

Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 114; 38 O.R.(3d) 161; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2005), 341 N.R. 114; 2005 FCA 361, refd to. [para. 53].

Clay v. Yassin et al., [2002] O.T.C. Uned. A06 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

Sheeraz et al. v. Kayani et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. L67; 99 O.R.(3d) 450 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

Pyrrha Design Inc. et al. v. 623735 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al. (2004), 328 N.R. 187; 2004 FCA 423, refd to. [para. 54].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Société Générale (Canada) et al. (2006), 219 O.A.C. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Morris (I.) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 915; 355 N.R. 86; 234 B.C.A.C. 1; 387 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Delgumuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 57].

Miller Estate, Re (1987), 26 E.T.R. 1888 (Surr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

Cowan v. Scargill, [1984] 2 All ER. 750 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 60].

V.A.H. v. Lynch et al.(2008), 449 A.R. 1; 2008 ABQB 448, refd to. [para. 61].

Lac Seul Indian Band v. Canada, [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 178; 2014 FC 296, refd to. [para. 65].

Matkin (Philip K.) Professional Corp. v. Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. (2014), 356 B.C.A.C. 308; 610 W.A.C. 308; 2014 BCCA 227, refd to. [para. 65].

Springhill Farms Limited Partnership v. Nose (2014), 352 B.C.A.C. 1; 601 W.A.C. 1; 2014 BCCA 66, refd to. [para. 65].

De Shazo v. Nations Energy Co. et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 267; 346 W.A.C. 267; 2005 ABCA 241, refd to. [para. 66].

Milliken & Co. et al. v. Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc., [1998] 3 F.C. 103; 143 F.T.R. 106 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 251 N.R. 358 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Johnson v. Futerman, [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4092; 2012 ONSC 4092, refd to. [para. 66].

Ambrozic v. Burcevski et al. (2008), 433 A.R. 25; 429 W.A.C. 25; 2008 ABCA 194, leave to appeal refused (2008), 392 N.R. 382; 469 A.R. 394; 470 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Moysa v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.), Alberta Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 and Hudson Bay Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1572; 96 N.R. 70; 97 A.R. 368, refd to. [para. 70].

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. 70].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Philips et al. v. Richard, J.

Native Council of Nova Scotia v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 306 F.T.R. 294; 2007 FC 45, refd to. [para. 70].

Kingstreet Investments Ltd. et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 3; 355 N.R. 336; 309 N.B.R.(2d) 255; 799 A.P.R. 255; 2007 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 181; 383 N.R. 247; 320 Sask.R. 305; 444 W.A.C. 305; 2009 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 72].

Nagy v. Phillips et al. (1996), 187 A.R. 97; 127 W.A.C. 97; 1996 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 72].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 72].

R.J.G. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2006), 49 Sask.R. 244; 325 W.A.C. 244; 2004 SKCA 102, leave to appeal refused (2005), 337 N.R. 194; 269 Sask.R. 311; 357 W.A.C. 311 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Castillo v. Castillo, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 870; 343 N.R. 144; 376 A.R. 224; 360 W.A.C. 224; 2005 SCC 83, ref to. [para. 73].

Stoney Tribal Council v. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. (2014), 592 A.R. 145; 2014 ABQB 408, refd to. [para. 75].

Heuman v. Andrews et al. (2005), 389 A.R. 182; 2005 ABQB 832, refd to. [para. 76].

Moody Estate, Re (2011), 518 A.R. 312; 2011 ABQB 222, refd tol. [para. 76].

Aucoin v. Murray (2013), 326 N.S.R.(2d) 218; 1033 A.P.R. 218; 2013 NSSC 37, refd to. [para. 76].

Grabber Industrial Products Central Ltd. et al. v. Stewart & Co. et al. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 122; 222 W.A.C. 122; 2000 BCCA 206, refd to. [para. 80].

Canada (Attorney General) v. 311165 B.C. Ltd. (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 1; 531 W.A.C. 1; 2011 BCCA 409, refd to. [para. 80].

Stoney Indian Band v. Canada (2005), 329 N.R. 201; 2005 FCA 15, leave to appeal refused (2005), 347 N.R. 392 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

St-Onge v. Canada (1999), 178 F.T.R. 104 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 288 N.R. 3; 2001 FCA 308, leave to appeal refused (2002), 300 N.R. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 81].

Lac Seul Indian Band v. Canada (2015), 470 N.R. 187; 2015 FCA 57, refd to. [para. 92].

Manitoba v. Canada - see Las Secul Indian Band v. Canada.

Garford Pty. Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International Canada Ltd. et al. (2010), 375 F.T.R. 38; 2010 FC 996, affd. (2012), 428 N.R. 306; 2012 FCA 48, refd to. [para. 96].

Kanematsu GmbH v. Acadia Shipbrokers Ltd. et al. (2000), 259 N.R. 201 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Riva Stahl GmbH et al. v. Combined Atlantic Carriers GmbH et al. (1999), 243 N.R. 183 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Marine Atlantic Inc. v. Blyth et al. (1994), 77 F.T.R. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 98].

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Alberta (Minister of Energy) et al. (2011), 505 A.R. 72; 522 W.A.C. 72; 2011 ABCA 29, refd to. [para. 128].

Michel et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 455 Sask.R. 60; 2014 SKQB 327, refd to. [para. 130].

Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Michel et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Lamport v. Thompson, [1940] 2 D.L.R. 619; [1940] O.R. 201 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 165].

De Shazo v. Nations Energy Co. et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 267; 346 W.A.C. 267; 2005 ABCA 241, refd to. [para. 175].

Ioannou v. Evans et al., [2008] O.T.C. Uned. 26 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 176].

Peepeekisis Indian Band et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2012), 415 F.T.R. 243; 2012 FC 915, refd to. [para. 188].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 39(1), sect. 39(2) [para. 15].

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, rule 213, rule 214, rule 215 [para. 14].

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J-1, sect. 14 [para. 17].

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, sect. 4(1)(c), sect. 4(1)(e), sect. 4(1)(g), sect. 6, sect. 40, sect. 41 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Clarke Hunter, Q.C., J. Raymond Chartier and Martha Peden, for the applicants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al.;

Douglas Rae, Brooke Barrett and Tibor Osvath, for the respondents, Chief Victor Buffalo acting on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Samson Indian Nation and Band et al.;

Joseph C. McArthur and Sarah Smith, for the respondents, Chief John Ermineskin and Lawrence Wildcat et al.;

Neil Dobson, Alberta Justice, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al.;

Rae and Company, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondents, Chief Victor Buffalo, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Samson Indian Nation and Band et al.;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents, Chief John Ermineskin and Lawrence Wildcat et al.;

Neil Dobson, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Alberta.

These motions for summary judgment were heard at Calgary, Alberta, on January 26-30, 2015, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated July 9, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.