Stoney Tribal Council v. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.,

• Judge: Hanebury
• Neutral Citation: 2012 ABQB 557
• Date: 11 June 2012
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE,TRUSTS
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Stoney Tribal Council v. Imperial Oil (2012), 547 A.R. 369 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. SE.049

Stoney Tribal Council, representing the Chiefs, Councils and Members of the Bearspaw, Chiniki and Wesley Bands (plaintiff) v. Imperial Oil Resources Limited (defendant)

(9701-16074; 2012 ABQB 557)

Indexed As: Stoney Tribal Council v. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Hanebury, Master

September 7, 2012.

Summary:

Between 1926 and 1962, the Stoney surrendered the oil and gas mining rights respecting certain lands to Canada "in trust to lease". Canada leased some lands to Imperial, which paid royalties to Canada in trust for the Stoney. The Stoney learned of possible improper deductions in calculating royalties by all resource companies. The Stoney commenced legal actions against Imperial, other resource companies and Canada, for unpaid royalties. Canada's action on the Stoney's behalf against Imperial and the others was settled, as was the Stoney's action against Canada for failing to collect the full royalties from Imperial and others. Stoney also sued Imperial for unpaid royalties. Imperial moved to dismiss that action on the grounds that the Stoney lacked standing to bring the action and, in any event, the result of the settlements was that there was no action left to bring because Imperial could not be sued multiple times for the same alleged debt. The Stoney argued that as a beneficiary of a trust where the trustee (Canada) failed to make a claim against Imperial for the full royalties owed, they had standing to sue. Further, on the merits, the Stoney argued that pursuant to s. 4(2) of the Indian Oil and Gas Act, the settlement between Canada and Imperial was invalid without the consent of the Stoney, which was not given. The Stoney also argued that if the settlement was valid, it was only for the amount received, leaving them with a claim against Imperial for the excess royalties owing.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action for lack of standing.

Indians, Inuit and Metis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - [See Trusts - Topic 2723 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5473

Lands - Surrender of lands - Mineral, oil and gas rights - [See Trusts - Topic 2723 ].

Practice - Topic 222.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Beneficiaries of trust - [See Trusts - Topic 2723 ].

Trusts - Topic 2723

The beneficiary - Rights of beneficiaries - To bring action - Between 1926 and 1962, the Stoney surrendered the oil and gas mining rights respecting certain lands to Canada "in trust to lease" - Canada leased some lands to Imperial, which paid royalties to Canada in trust for the Stoney - The Stoney learned of possible improper deductions in calculating royalties by all resource companies - The Stoney commenced legal actions against Imperial, other resource companies and Canada, for unpaid royalties - Canada's action on the Stoney's behalf against Imperial and the others was settled, as was the Stoney's action against Canada for failing to collect the full royalties from Imperial and others - The Stoney also sued Imperial for unpaid royalties - Imperial moved to dismiss that action on the grounds that the Stoney lacked standing to bring the action - The Stoney argued that as a beneficiary of a trust where the trustee (Canada) failed to make a claim against Imperial for the full royalties owed, they had standing to sue - The Stoney also argued that if the settlement was valid, it was only for the amount received, leaving them with a claim against Imperial for the excess royalties owing - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - There was no privity of contract between the Stoney and Imperial - A contract action by a debtor of the trust was generally brought by the trustee - An action by the beneficiary of a trust (the Stoney) against a third party (Imperial) was allowed only in limited circumstances when certain prerequisites were met - One prerequisite was that the beneficiary (the Stoney) was unable to obtain redress from the trustee (Canada) - There was no genuine issue for trial respecting the ability of Canada to provide the Stoney with redress respecting unpaid royalties owed by Imperial - The Stoney had no standing to continue their action against Imperial - If there were royalties outstanding, the Stoney's remedy was against the Crown, where they argued that the Canada/Stoney settlement was not final.

Cases Noticed:

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. 6].

Stoney Tribal Council et al. v. Petro-Canada et al. (2009), 478 A.R.198; 2009 ABQB 430 (Master), refd to. [para. 12].

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. 22].

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 228; 32 N.R. 163; 39 N.S.R.(2d) 119; 71 A.P.R. 119, refd to. [para. 22].

Martin v. General Teamsters, Local Union No. 362, [2011] A.R. Uned. 484; 2011 ABQB 412, refd to. [para. 26].

Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (2012), 541 A.R. 1; 2012 ABQB 48, refd to. [para. 26].

BA Capital Inc. v. Stream Oil & Gas Ltd., [2011] A.R. Uned. 168; 2011 ABQB 91 (Master), refd to. [para. 27].

Tottrup et al. v. Clearwater No. 99 (Municipal District) (2006), 401 A.R. 88; 391 W.A.C. 88; 2006 ABCA 380, refd to. [para. 28].

Roberts v. Gill & Co. Solicitors et al., [2010] N.R. Uned. 63; [2010] UKSC 22, refd to. [para. 32].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 38].

Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2005), 269 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 1622, affd. (2006), 357 N.R. 1; 2006 FCA 415, refd to. [para. 42].

Remmers et al. v. Lipinski et al. (2001), 293 A.R. 156; 257 W.A.C. 156; 2001 ABCA 188, refd to. [para. 66].

Kwinter v. Metrowest Development Ltd. et al. (2007), 443 A.R. 86; 2007 ABQB 713, refd to. [para. 67].

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. 70].

Sharpe v. San Paulo Railway Co. (1873), L.R. 8 Ch. App. 597 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Norfolk (Municipality) v. Roberts (1913), 28 O.L.R. 593 (C.A.), affd. (1914), 50 S.C.R. 283, refd to. [para. 70].

Hayim v. Citibank NA, [1987] 3 W.L.R. 83 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Mayer v. Mayer et al. (2012), 317 B.C.A.C. 132; 540 W.A.C. 132; 2012 BCCA 77, refd to. [para. 70].

Bronson et al. v. Hewitt et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1115; 2011 BCSC 1115, refd to. [para. 74].

Citadel General Assurance Co. et al. v. Lloyds Bank of Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 805; 219 N.R. 323; 206 A.R. 321; 156 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 13].

Condominium Corp. No. 0321365 et al. v. 970365 Alberta Ltd. et al. (2012), 519 A.R. 322; 539 W.A.C. 322; 2012 ABCA 26, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borrows, John, and Rotman, Leonard I., The Sui Generis Nature of Aboriginal Rights: Does it Make a Difference? (1997), 36 Alta. L. Rev. 9, para. 1 [para. 39, footnote 7]; para. 2 [para. 40, footnote 9]; footnote 66 [para. 39, footnote 8].

Miller, Paul B., A Theory of Fiduciary Liability (2011), 56:2 McGill L.J. 235, para. 14 [para. 36, footnote 5].

Rotman, Leonard I., Fiduciary Doctrine: A Concept in Need of Understanding (1996), 34 Alta. L. Rev. 821, generally [para. 37, footnote 6].

Counsel:

Heather L. Treacy, Q.C. (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the defendant;

W. Tibor Osvath (Rae and Co. LLP), for the plaintiff.

This application was heard on June 11, 2012, before Hanebury, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on September 7, 2012.