Soldier v. Can. (A.G.)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Judge: Steel, Hamilton and Chartier, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 MBCA 12
• Citation: 2009 MBCA 12,(2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 107 (CA),[2009] 4 WWR 455,[2009] MJ No 32 (QL),[2009] 2 CNLR 362,236 Man R (2d) 107,236 Man.R.(2d) 107,[2009] M.J. No 32 (QL),(2009), 236 ManR(2d) 107 (CA),236 ManR(2d) 107
• Date: 03 June 2008

Soldier v. Can. (A.G.) (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 107 (CA);

      448 W.A.C. 107

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.019

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

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

(AI 06-30-06463; AI 06-30-06464; 2009 MBCA 12)

Indexed As: Soldier v. Canada (Attorney General)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Steel, Hamilton and Chartier, JJ.A.

February 6, 2009.

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, in a decision reported at 200 Man.R.(2d) 216, 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. Soldier and Bone applied for leave to appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Monnin, J.A., in a decision reported at 225 Man.R.(2d) 101; 419 W.A.C. 101, granted leave to appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 503

Rights - General - Individuality v. collectivity - The two individual plaintiffs sued the Crown for annuities allegedly due under two treaties - The plaintiffs sought a class action certification - A certification judge dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing (i.e., did not have a cause of action, CPA, s. 4(a)), because all aboriginal rights were collective rights and only enforceable by the band - Further there were no common issues (CPA, s. 4(c)) and a class action was not the preferable procedure (s. 4(d)) - Also because of evidentiary concerns, the plaintiffs were not appropriate class representatives (s. 4(e)) - The plaintiffs appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law when she held that the plaintiffs had no standing where the law respecting collective versus individual rights was not sufficiently clear to conclude that the plaintiffs would undoubtedly fail - Because her decision on standing dictated her conclusion that there were no common issues, she erred in that conclusion as well - The court, however, held that the certification judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure or in finding that the plaintiffs were not the appropriate representatives of the class - Therefore, since all the criteria in s. 4 were not fulfilled, the appeal was dismissed.

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) - The two individual plaintiffs sued the Crown for annuities allegedly due under two treaties - The plaintiffs sought a class action certification - A certification judge dismissed the application, holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs lacked standing (i.e., did not have a cause of action, CPA, s. 4(a)), because all aboriginal rights were collective rights and only enforceable by the band - The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the motions judge should not have considered the issue of standing at the certification stage - The Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs' argument that certification should have been dealt with first and the judge's decision on standing was premature - The court held that the question of when to consider the issue of standing was discretionary and could vary depending on the facts of each case and the nature of the evidence - Thus the certification judge did not err in principle or commit palpable and overriding error when she considered standing as part of the question as to whether the plaintiffs had a cause of action - See paragraphs 20 to 37.

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) - Section 4(d) of the Class Proceedings Act required that the certification judge be convinced that "a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues" - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the analysis required by s. 4(d) was often referred to as the "preferability" analysis - The court held that a certification judge's decision on preferability was a discretionary decision that ought to be accorded significant deference - The court elaborated on the type of preferability analysis required by the Manitoba legislation - See paragraphs 62 to 73.

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) - 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 - A certification judge dismissed the application, holding that a representative action would be the preferable procedure - The plaintiffs appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal noted that in this case the issue was not whether it would be preferable to have the matter proceed as a class action or as a series of individual claims, rather everyone was agreed that the choice was between a class action or a representative action - The court commented that there was a lack of clarity between the advantages and disadvantages of aboriginal litigation proceeding by way of class action as opposed to representative action - Therefore, it could not be said that the certification judge erred in principle or committed palpable and overriding error when, after weighing the advantages and disadvantages, she decided that in this case, a representative action would be the preferable procedure - See paragraphs 80 to 89.

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 and Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Practice - Topic 209.9

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Appeals (incl. standard of review) - 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 under the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) - A certification judge dismissed the application - The plaintiffs appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed the standard of review - See paragraphs 20 to 25.

Practice - Topic 8825.4

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appeal court from decision of motions judge on class action certification motion - [See Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 3].

Scott et al. v. St. Boniface General Hospital et al. (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 159; 304 W.A.C. 159; 2003 MBCA 90, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Dinney v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. et al. (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 229; 340 W.A.C. 229; 2005 MBCA 36, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Thundersky et al. v. Grace (W.R.) & Co. et al. (2005), 201 Man.R.(2d) 87; 366 W.A.C. 87; 2005 MBCA 125, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Walls et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 293; 351 W.A.C. 293; 2005 MBCA 93, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Jane Doe et al. v. Manitoba (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 309; 351 W.A.C. 309; 2005 MBCA 109, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 220 Man.R.(2d) 224; 407 W.A.C. 224; 2007 MBCA 123, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Bellan v. Curtis et al., [2007] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 94; 2007 MBCA 165, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 1].

Walls et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2005), 189 Man.R.(2d) 162; 2005 MBQB 3, affd. (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 293; 351 W.A.C. 293; 2005 MBCA 93, leave to appeal refused (2005), 349 N.R. 394; 212 Man.R.(2d) 318; 389 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Pearson v. Inco Ltd. et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 30; 261 D.L.R.(4th) 629; 78 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 357 N.R. 394; 225 O.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hickey-Button v. Loyalist College of Applied Arts & Technology (2006), 211 O.A.C. 301; 267 D.L.R.(4th) 601 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hoy v. Medtronic Inc. et al., [2003] 7 W.W.R. 681; 183 B.C.A.C. 165; 301 W.A.C. 165; 2003 BCCA 316, refd to. [para. 22].

Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (2007), 417 A.R. 200; 410 W.A.C. 200; 46 C.P.C.(6th) 39; 2007 ABCA 294, refd to. [para. 22].

Nelson House Indian Band et al. v. Young et al. (1999), 134 Man.R.(2d) 134; 193 W.A.C. 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 31].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 34].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, refd to. [para. 34].

Moyes v. Fortune Financial Corp. et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. B66; 13 C.P.C.(5th) 147 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 41].

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. 41].

Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. (2007), 293 Sask.R. 89; 397 W.A.C. 89; 283 D.L.R.(4th) 190; 2007 SKCA 47, leave to appeal refused (2007), 383 N.R. 399; 324 Sask.R. 318; 451 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Mathias 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. 44].

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. 44].

Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 202 F.T.R. 30; 2001 FCT 181, affd. (2002), 291 N.R. 393; 2002 FCA 255; 2002 FCA 249, refd to. [para. 45].

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

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 4 C.N.L.R. 110; 365 A.R. 1; 2004 ABQB 655, revd. in part (2006), 404 A.R. 349; 394 W.A.C. 349; 2006 ABCA 392, revd. [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. 47].

Delgamuukw 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. 48].

Nemaiah Valley Indian Band et al. v. Riverside Forest Products Ltd. et al. (1999), 24 B.C.T.C. 131; 37 C.P.C.(4th) 101 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Pawis v. Canada, [1980] 2 F.C. 18; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 602 (T.D.), dist. [para. 52].

Wahsatnow v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2002), 228 F.T.R. 92; 2002 FCT 2012, dist. [para. 53].

Beattie et al. v. Canada (2000), 197 F.T.R. 209 (T.D.), dist. [para. 54].

R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, dist. [para. 55].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.), Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; 247 N.R. 306; 179 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 553 A.P.R. 1, dist. [para. 55].

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, dist. [para. 55].

Grant v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] O.T.C. 771; 77 O.R.(3d) 481; 258 D.L.R.(4th) 725 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56].

Picard v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2007] 4 C.N.L.R. 225; 2007 QCCS 2122, refd to. [para. 56].

Caputo et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 160; 74 O.R.(3d) 728 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 66].

Jeffrey et al. v. London Life Insurance Co. et al. (2008), 241 O.A.C. 101; 65 C.C.L.I.(4th) 10 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 66].

Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184; 275 N.R. 342; 157 B.C.A.C. 1; 256 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 68].

Cloud et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 192 O.A.C. 239; 247 D.L.R.(4th) 667 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 69].

Abdool et al. v. Anaheim Management Ltd. et al. (1995), 78 O.A.C. 377; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 496 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 72].

Red Rock First Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 462; [2005] 3 C.N.L.R. 317 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, S.M. 2002, c. 14; C.C.S.M., c. C-130, sect. 4 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Branch, Ward K., Class Actions in Canada (2007 Looseleaf Update, Release 19), p. 4-69 [para. 39].

Canada, Federal Court of Canada Rules Committee, Class Proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada - A Discussion Paper (2000), p. 23 [para. 84].

Cromwell, Thomas A., Locus Standi: A Commentary on the Law of Standing in Canada (1986), p. 209 [para. 30].

Dorey, Dwight A., and Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Aboriginal Rights Litigation (2003), pp. 293 [para. 58]; 294 [paras. 58, 88]; 310, 311 [para. 83]; 318 [paras. 58, 83]; 319 [para. 83]; 320 [para. 58].

Elwood, Bruce C., Aboriginal Law: Litigation Issues: Potential Use of Class Proceedings in Aboriginal Rights Litigation (2004), pp. 4.1.2, 4.1.8 [para. 85].

Jamal, Mahmud, and Bell, Derek J., Class Actions and Aboriginal Litigation, in Dorey, Dwight A., and Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Aboriginal Rights Litigation (2003), pp. 293 [para. 58]; 294 [paras. 58, 88]; 310, 311 [para. 83]; 318 [paras. 58, 83]; 319 [para. 83]; 320 [para. 58].

Kimmel, Jessica A., The Merits of the Merits in the Class Certification Analysis (2007), 4 Can. Class Action Rev. 3, generally [para. 97].

McCarthy Tétrault, Defending Class Actions in Canada (2nd Ed. 2007), pp. 174, 175 [para. 96].

Morabito, Vince, Standing to Sue and Multiple Defendant Class Actions in Australia, Canada, and the United States (2003), 41 Alta. L. Rev. 295, p. 298 [para. 30].

Counsel:

D.W. Coward, for the appellants;

G.A. Hart and C.D. Clark, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on June 3, 2008, by Steel, Hamilton and Chartier, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment for the court was delivered on February 6, 2009, by Steel, J.A.