Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada et al., (2004) 193 B.C.A.C. 87 (YukCA)
Judge | Ryan, Newbury and Hall, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory) |
Case Date | November 28, 2003 |
Jurisdiction | Yukon |
Citations | (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 87 (YukCA);2004 YKCA 2 |
Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Can. (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 87 (YukCA);
316 W.A.C. 87
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.072
Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in (appellant/petitioner/respondent on cross-appeal) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, Government of the Yukon and Canadian United Minerals Inc. (respondents/respondents/appellant on cross-appeal)
(YU494; 2004 YKCA 2)
Indexed As: Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada et al.
Yukon Court of Appeal
Ryan, Newbury and Hall, JJ.A.
January 23, 2004.
Summary:
Canadian United Minerals Inc. (CUMI) acquired mineral claims located in a Territorial Park in the Yukon. About a year later, the park became part of territory covered by an Aboriginal Land Claims Settlement. Subsequently, CUMI applied for a five-year exploration permit. After a public hearing, the Chief, Mining Land Use and Reclamation, issued a permit authorizing certain exploration activities on the claims. The aboriginals applied for judicial review of the Chief's decision in Federal Court, but discontinued the application. They then petitioned for declarations that the lands and the mining claims were subject to the Settlement and required to be managed according to the provisions of the Settlement. CUMI applied for contrary declarations.
The Yukon Supreme Court dismissed both applications, but granted two declaratory orders: (1) that CUMI possessed the right to operate and manage the claims under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, and (2) that the authorities ought to exercise their discretion relative to the development of the mineral claims only after considering and observing the objectives in the Settlement. The aboriginals appealed. CUMI cross-appealed.
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal. The court further set aside the two declarations granted at trial, as they were neither helpful nor necessary.
Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5522
Lands - Land claim agreements - Interpretation - CUMI acquired mineral claims in a territorial park - The park became part of territory covered by an aboriginal land claims settlement - The aboriginals sought declarations that the lands and the mining claims were subject to the settlement and must be managed according to its provisions - CUMI sought contrary declarations - The Yukon Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of both applications - The trial judge correctly construed the settlement agreement, having regard to its plain wording - The agreement clearly concluded that the parties agreed that the establishment of the park would not nullify existing rights of owners of mineral claims that were previously validly located in the park area - The terms of the settlement clearly intended to "grandfather" CUMI's mineral rights - See paragraphs 3 to 19.
Practice - Topic 5653.1
Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - When available - Requirement of lis between parties - The Yukon Court of Appeal stated that a court may properly exercise its discretion to refuse a declaration where the relief sought was not related to an existing and defined lis - See paragraph 11.
Cases Noticed:
Eastmain Indian Band et al. v. Robinson et al., [1993] 1 F.C. 501; 147 N.R. 76; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 16; [1993] 3 C.N.L.R. 55 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 3 S.C.R. vi; 163 N.R. 160; 104 D.L.R.(4th) vii; [1993] 4 C.N.L.R. vi, refd to. [para. 13].
St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ottawa (Trustees) v. Ottawa (City), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 616; 45 N.R. 271; 140 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 16].
Counsel:
G.R. Thompson and S. Walsh, for the appellant;
F.L. Lamer and K.D. Parkkari, for the respondent, Canadian United Minerals Inc.;
P. Gawn and M. Leask, for the respondent, Government of the Yukon;
M. Radke, for the respondent, HMTQ in Right of Canada.
These appeals were heard before Ryan, Newbury and Hall, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 28, 2003. The decision of the court was delivered on January 23, 2004, by Hall, J.A.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 138
...Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia, 2000 BCCA 539, leave to appeal ref’d, [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 625; Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in v. Canada, 2004 YKCA 2; and Kaska Dena Council v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2008 BCCA 455, on the basis that the declarations requested in those cases re......
-
Ross River Dena Council v. Yukon et al., [2011] Yukon Cases Uned. 84
...rights. (p. 710) [76] There are two Yukon cases that have denied declaratory orders. In Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada , 2004 YKCA 2, the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in applied for a declaration that certain pre-existing mining claims in Tombstone Territorial Park we......
-
Kraft Heinz Canada ULC v. Canada (Attorney General),
...Public Employees v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABCA 416 at para. 23; Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in v. Canada, 2004 YKCA 2 at paras. 10-11. A declaration is not an advisory opinion. It is a vehicle for the settlement of a dispute. [23] ......
-
Wilson v. British Columbia, 2012 BCSC 1256
...sitting as the Yukon Court of Appeal, also considered the discretionary nature of declaratory relief in Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada, 2004 YKCA 2. There, a First Nation and a mineral exploration company each sought declarations construing and interpreting provisions of a final agreement made......
-
West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 138
...Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia, 2000 BCCA 539, leave to appeal ref’d, [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 625; Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in v. Canada, 2004 YKCA 2; and Kaska Dena Council v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2008 BCCA 455, on the basis that the declarations requested in those cases re......
-
Ross River Dena Council v. Yukon et al., [2011] Yukon Cases Uned. 84
...rights. (p. 710) [76] There are two Yukon cases that have denied declaratory orders. In Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada , 2004 YKCA 2, the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in applied for a declaration that certain pre-existing mining claims in Tombstone Territorial Park we......
-
Kraft Heinz Canada ULC v. Canada (Attorney General),
...Public Employees v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABCA 416 at para. 23; Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in v. Canada, 2004 YKCA 2 at paras. 10-11. A declaration is not an advisory opinion. It is a vehicle for the settlement of a dispute. [23] ......
-
Wilson v. British Columbia, 2012 BCSC 1256
...sitting as the Yukon Court of Appeal, also considered the discretionary nature of declaratory relief in Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada, 2004 YKCA 2. There, a First Nation and a mineral exploration company each sought declarations construing and interpreting provisions of a final agreement made......