Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., (2003) 238 F.T.R. 68 (FC)

• Judge: Teitelbaum, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 12, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 238 F.T.R. 68 (FC);2003 FC 975

Samson Indian Band v. Can. (2003), 238 F.T.R. 68 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.011

Chief Victor Buffalo acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Samson Indian Nation and Band and the Samson Indian Band and Nation (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Finance (defendants) and Chief Jerome Morin acting on his own behalf as well as on the behalf of all the members of Enoch's Band of Indians and the Residents thereof on and of Stony Plain Reserve No. 135 (intervenors) and Emily Stoyka and Sara Schug (intervenors)

(T-2022-89; 2003 FC 975)

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

Federal Court

Teitelbaum, J.

August 12, 2003.

Summary:

The applicants sought an order issuing subpoenas for the appearance of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as witnesses at a trial.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Crown - Topic 2207

Crown privilege or prerogative - General - Parliamentary privilege - The plaintiffs sought an order issuing subpoenas for the appearance of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as witnesses at a trial - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court held that there existed a Parliamentary privilege exempting members from answering subpoenas to attend as witnesses at trial while Parliament was in session - Further, given the importance of the dignity and efficiency of the conduct of the business of Parliament, additional time was required before and after the duration of the session for preparation and conclusion of the session - The court held that the parliamentary privilege extended 14 days before and after a session.

Cases Noticed:

Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad & E. 1; 112 E.R. 1112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Corp. and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Speaker of the House of Assembly (N.S.) et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319; 146 N.R. 161; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 327 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 14].

Ainsworth Lumber Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 256; 298 W.A.C. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Brown (E.W.) (2001), 197 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285; 591 A.P.R. 285 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Gamble (1851), 9 U.C.Q.B. 546 (Up. Can. Ct. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Telezone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] O.J. No. 2543 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 385, dist. [para. 48].

Canada (Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce) v. Central Cartage Co. et al. (No. 1), [1990] 2 F.C. 641; 109 N.R. 357 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Central Cartage Co. - see Canada (Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce) v. Central Cartage Co. et al. (No. 1).

Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; 201 N.R. 1; 178 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 454 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beauchesne, Parliamentary Rules in the Forms (6th Ed. 1989), p. 11 [para. 17].

Bourinot, J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada (4th Ed. 1916), pp. 37, 38, 43 [para. 18]; 45, 46 [para. 34].

Griffith & Ryle, Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures (1989), pp. 86, 87 [para. 31].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1997), vol. 34, p. 561 [para. 28].

Hatsell, John, Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons (3rd Ed. 1976), vol. 1, pp. 1, 2 [para. 29].

Maingot, J.P.J., Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (1982), pp. 128 [para. 29]; 134 [para. 30].

Maingot, J.P.J., Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (2nd Ed. 1997), pp. 12 [para. 16]; 155 [para. 38].

Marleau, R., and Montpetit, C., House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2000), p. 79 [para. 36].

May, Erskine, Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (21st Ed. 1989), pp. 69, 82 [para. 17]; 100 [para. 40].

Ward, N., Dawson's The Government of Canada (6th Ed. 1987), p. 115 [para. 35].

Counsel:

James O'Reilly, Ed Molstad, Q.C., Peter Hutchins, Nathan Whitling and David Sharko, for the plaintiff;

Alan MacLeod, Q.C., and Wendy McCallum, for the defendant;

Brian Evernden, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Marvin Storrow, Q.C., Maria Morellato and Joseph McArthur, for the plaintiff, T-1254-92 (made no submissions).

Solicitors of Record:

O'Reilly & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, Parlee McLaws LLP, Calgary, Alberta, and Hutchins Soroko & Grant, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Macleod Dixon LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the defendant;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the plaintiff, T-1254-92.

This application was heard on May 12-16, 20-23 and 26-28, 2003, at Calgary, Alberta, before Teitelbaum, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on August 12, 2003.