Bone v. Attorney General of Canada, (2006) 200 Man.R.(2d) 216 (QB)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Simonsen, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 MBQB 50
• Citation: (2006), 200 Man.R.(2d) 216 (QB),2006 MBQB 50,200 Man R (2d) 216
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Date: 22 February 2006

Soldier v. Can. (A.G.) (2006), 200 Man.R.(2d) 216 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.011

Larry Soldier on his own behalf, and as representative of all other individuals who are benficiaries under Treaty No. 1 (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant)

Norman Bone on his own behalf, and as representative of all other individuals who are beneficiaries under Treaty No. 2 (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant)

(CI 04-01-36580, CI 04-01-36579; 2006 MBQB 50)

Indexed As: Soldier v. Canada (Attorney General)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Simonsen, J.

February 22, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiffs filed statements of claim seeking damages from the federal Crown for past annuities allegedly due under two 1871 treaties, Treaty No. 1 and Treaty No. 2. The plaintiffs sought certification of the proceedings as class actions, with Mr. Soldier representing a class consisting of all beneficiaries under Treaty No. 1 and Mr. Bone representing a class consisting of all beneficiaries under Treaty No. 2. In total, there were approximately 40,000 beneficiaries under the two treaties.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application where the criteria under s. 4 of the Class Proceedings Act were not met and these cases were not appropriate actions for class proceedings.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 503

Rights - General - Individuality v. collectivity - The two individual plaintiffs filed statements of claim seeking damages from the federal Crown for annuities allegedly due under two treaties - The plaintiffs sought certification of the proceedings as class actions - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, holding that the criteria under s. 4 of the Class Proceedings Act were not met - The court held that the right to annuities was a collectively held right and, therefore, the individual plaintiffs lacked standing (i.e., they were not the proper parties to bring the claims for damages based treaty interpretation) - Thus it was plain and obvious that there was no cause of action and the first criterion under the Act (s. 4(a)) was not met - Further there were no common issues sufficient to satisfy s. 4(c) of the Act and a class action was not the preferable procedure for resolving the matters at issue - Also because of evidentiary concerns, the court was not satisfied that the plaintiffs were the appropriate representatives of the class.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 503 ].

Cases Noticed:

Walls et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2005), 189 Man.R.(2d) 262 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Walls et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 293; 351 W.A.C. 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Walls et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2005), 349 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Wahsatnow v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2002), 228 F.T.R. 92 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 25].

Mathis Colomb Indian Band et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. et al. (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 105; 61 W.A.C. 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 766; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 158 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 29].

Gill v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2005), 271 F.T.R. 139 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 34].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 365 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

R. v. Blackfoot Band of Indians et al., [1982] 3 C.N.L.R. 53; [1982] 4 W.W.R. 230 (F.C.T.D.), red to. [para. 36].

Beattie v. Canada (2004), 252 F.T.R. 174 (F.C. Protho.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Pawis et al., [1980] 2 F.C. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].

Beattie et al. v. Canada (2000), 197 F.T.R. 209 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Marshall (S.F.) et al.; R. v. Bernard (J.) (2005), 336 N.R. 22; 287 N.B.R.(2d) 206; 750 A.P.R. 206; 235 N.S.R.(2d) 151; 747 A.P.R. 151; 2005 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Chevrier, [1989] 1 C.N.L.R. 128 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

McKenzie v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 99 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

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. 51].

Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band Chief v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1989), 56 D.L.R.(4th) 404 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 102 N.R. 76, refd to. [para. 52].

Muchalaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al., [1990] 1 F.C. 275; 30 F.T.R. 120 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Johnson v. Canada - see Muchalaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al.

Nemaiah Valley Indian Band et al. v. Riverside Forest Products Ltd. et al. (1999), 24 B.C.T.C. 131 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Shubenacadia Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (2001), 202 F.T.R. 30 (T.D.), affd. (2002), 291 N.R. 393; 2002 FCA 255 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al. (1991), 44 F.T.R. 235 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 53].

Batchewana Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al. - see Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al.

Desjarlais et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Development) et al. (2002), 224 F.T.R. 37 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 53].

Indian Residential Schools, Re (2000), 272 A.R. 92 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

Adam v. Canada - see Indian Residential Schools, Re.

Daniels et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2002), 220 F.T.R. 41 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 54].

Dumont v. Canada (Attorney General) (1987), 48 Man.R.(2d) 4 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, S.M. 2002, c. 14; C.C.S.M., c. C-130, sect. 4 [para. 18].

Queen's Bench Rules (Man.) - see Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules.

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 10 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Deryk W. Coward and John C. Stewart, for the plaintiffs;

Glynis A. Hart and Michael A. Conner, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Simonsen, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on February 22, 2006.