Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., 2016 FCA 223

• Judge: Nadon, Dawson and Webb, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: September 08, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2016 FCA 223;(2016), 487 N.R. 306 (FCA)

Samson Indian Band v. Can. (2016), 487 N.R. 306 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. SE.014

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 behalf of all the other members of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and The Minister of Finance (respondents) and Attorney General of Alberta (intervener)

(A-325-15)

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 (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and The Minister of Finance (respondents) and Attorney General of Alberta (intervener)

(A-326-15; 2016 FCA 223)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Dawson and Webb, JJ.A.

September 8, 2016.

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, "Ermineskin" and "Samson", 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, in a decision reported at [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.031, 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. Each of the plaintiffs appealed. The appeals were consolidated.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Webb, J.A., dissenting, dismissed both appeals. Webb, J.A., agreed with the disposition of Ermineskin's appeal, but would allow Samson's appeal in relation to the issue of whether Canada had improperly or illegally taxed the property of Samson.

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 ("Ermineskin" and "Samson"), 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 (the regulated price regime issue) - 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 Federal Court granted the Crown's motion - Ermineskin and Samson each appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals - The Federal Court did not err by determining that the Crown's motion raised issues which were suitable for summary judgment - The Court also rejected Samson's argument that the Federal Court misapprehended the nature of the claims at issue - Nor did the Federal Court err when it found that there was no genuine issue for trial with respect to whether the entirety of Samson's claims were barred by the application of s. 4(1)(e) of the Alberta Limitation of Actions Act - See paragraphs 1 to 52 - Webb, J.A., agreed with the disposition of Ermineskin's appeal, but would allow Samson's appeal in relation to the issue of whether Canada had improperly or illegally taxed the property of Samson - See paragraphs 53 to 64.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - General - Limitation of actions - [See Crown - Topic 4082 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - [See Crown - Topic 4082 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7604

Actions against the Crown - In the Federal Court of Canada - Applicable law - [See Crown - Topic 4082 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - [See Crown - Topic 4082 ].

Practice - Topic 5717

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - For part of claim - [See Crown - Topic 4082 ].

Counsel:

Joseph C. McArthur, Joanne R. Lysyk and Bryan Hicks, for the appellants, Chief John Ermineskin et al.;

L. Douglas Rae, W. Tibor Osvath and Brooke Barrett, for the appellants, Chief Victor Buffalo et al.;

Clarke Hunter, Q.C., Mary E. Comeau and J. Raymond Chartier, for the respondents;

Neil Dobson, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants, Chief John Ermineskin et al.;

Rae and Company, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellants, Chief Victor Buffalo et al.;

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondents;

Alberta Justice, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 14 and 15, 2016, before Nadon, Dawson and Webb, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated September 8, 2016, at Ottawa, Ontario:

Dawson, J.A. (Nadon, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 52;

Webb, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 53 to 64.