Thunderchild First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada), (2015) 476 F.T.R. 40 (FC)

• Judge: Locke, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 476 F.T.R. 40 (FC);2015 FC 200

Thunderchild First Nation v. Can. (2015), 476 F.T.R. 40 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.004

Thunderchild First Nation, as represented by its duly elected Chief and Council (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada (also known as The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada)

(respondent)

(T-791-14; 2015 FC 200)

Indexed As: Thunderchild First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada)

Federal Court

Locke, J.

February 18, 2015.

Summary:

After the Thunderbird First Nation refused to sign an Aboriginal Receipt Funding Agreement with the Minister for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the Minister appointed a Third Party Funding Agreement Manager to administer the funds and deliver services to First Nation members in the place of the First Nation. The First Nation applied for judicial review of that decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Minister observed the principles of natural justice and fulfilled his duty to consult and accommodate.

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Appeals or judicial review - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6334 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - [See Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6334 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6334

Government - Self-government - Co-management agreements or third party management - After the Thunderbird First Nation (TFN) refused to sign an Aboriginal Receipt Funding Agreement with the Minister for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the Minister appointed a Third Party Funding Agreement Manager to administer the funds and deliver services to First Nation members in the place of TFN - TFN had refused to sign over objections to amendments to the Agreement - The TFN, along with other First Nations, had been invited to a workshop to discuss the proposed changes, but refused to attend - The federal Crown addressed several concerns and consultation and negotiation respecting funding agreements remained ongoing - The Federal Court dismissed TFN's application for judicial review of the decision to appoint a manager - Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Minister's decision fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which were defensible in respect of the facts and law - It was reasonable, even absent default by TFN, to transfer public funds without a signed funding agreement, as it was necessary to ensure that programs and services to TFN members was not interrupted - Alternatives to appointing a manager were first considered, but rejected as unworkable - The Minister fulfilled his administrative duty to observe the principles of fundamental justice and procedural fairness - TFN, having chosen not to participate in the consultation process, could not now seek to set aside the decision for want of consultation - See paragraphs 26 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Kehewin Cree Nation v. Canada et al., [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 219; 2011 FC 364, refd to. [para. 26].

Tobique Indian Band v. Canada (2010), 361 F.T.R. 202; 2010 FC 67, refd to. [para. 26].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 26].

Attawapiskat First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and North Development) (2012), 416 F.T.R. 172; 2012 FC 948, refd to. [para. 29].

Algonquins of Barriere Lake v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (2009), 343 F.T.R. 298; 2009 FC 374, refd to. [para. 31].

Simon et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 442 F.T.R. 33; 2013 FC 1117, refd to. [para. 37].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; 327 N.R. 53; 206 B.C.A.C. 52; 338 W.A.C. 52; 2004 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 38].

Taku River Tlingit First Nation et al. v. Tulsequah Chief Mine Project (Project Assessment Director) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; 327 N.R. 133; 206 B.C.A.C. 132; 338 W.A.C. 132; 2004 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 38].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al. (2005), 342 N.R. 82; 2005 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Collin K. Hirschfeld, for the applicant;

Gwen MacIsaac and Thor Kristiansen, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McKercher LLP, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respondent.

This application was heard on December 3, 2014, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Locke, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 18, 2015.