Vollant v. Sioui et al., 2006 FC 487

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 487;(2006), 295 F.T.R. 48 (FC)

Vollant v. Sioui (2006), 295 F.T.R. 48 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.014

Albert Vollant (demandeur) v. Konrad Sioui et Rosario Pinette, Céline Bellefleur, Georges Ernest Grégoire, Marcelle St-Onge, Gilles Jourdain, Ronald Fontaine et Maurice Vollant, en leur qualité de membres ou ex-membres du conseil de bande (défendeurs)

(T-1837-04; T-1532-04; 2006 CF 487; 2006 FC 487)

Indexed As: Vollant v. Sioui et al.

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

April 13, 2006.

Summary:

The applicant applied for judicial review of two resolutions adopted by the Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam Band Council.

The Federal Court allowed the applications and set aside the resolutions.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6232

Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Resolutions - The Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam Band Council adopted two resolutions with the signature of the majority of the members of Council and without the holding of a meeting - The applicant applied for judicial review, asserting that the resolutions were unlawfully adopted (contrary to s. 2(3)(b) of the Indian Act) - The Federal Court allowed the application - Section 2(3)(b) was drafted in mandatory terms - The court rejected the respondents' argument that the procedure adopted by the Council was a custom - The respondents failed to establish that a custom actually existed - Even if there was a custom, the requirements governing its application had not been met - The Council had failed to check whether dissident councillors were available to attend a meeting - The court had suspicions regarding whether the resolutions were urgent - Finally, the support for the resolutions was unclear as the evidence revealed that some councillors who had signed them did not fully understand their meaning and actual scope - As the resolutions had a legal and practical impact on the band, the court intervened and set aside the resolutions - See paragraphs 32 to 54.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6238

Government - Band councils (incl. chief and councillors) - Judicial review - The Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam Band Council adopted two resolutions with the signature of the majority of the members of Council and without the holding of a meeting - The applicant applied for judicial review, asserting that the resolutions were unlawfully adopted (contrary to s. 2(3)(b) of the Indian Act) - The Federal Court affirmed that the pragmatic and functional approach applied to determine the appropriate standard of review - The Act did not immunize decisions made by a band council through a privative clause - The issue was not whether the Council was right in acting the way it did, but whether it was empowered to do so - Its expertise in this regard was certainly not superior to that of the court - Parliament granted a high level of autonomy to the authority elected by the band members in administering their affairs, and this objective should be fully respected by the courts - However, as with municipal councils, it remained that the decisions had to be made within the parameters set by the law - Finally, the issue whether the Council had the power to follow the chosen procedure in adopting the resolutions was a legal issue - Accordingly, the appropriate standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Rider v. Ear (1979), 103 D.L.R.(3d) 168 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Canatonquin et al. v. Gabriel et al., [1980] 2 F.C. 792; [1981] 4 C.N.L.R. 61 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Coalition To Save Northern Flood v. Canada et al., [1995] 9 W.W.R. 457; 102 Man.R.(2d) 223; 93 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Francis et al. v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake et al., [2003] 4 F.C. 1133; 227 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Frank v. Bottle et al. (1993), 65 F.T.R. 89 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Scrimbitt v. Sakimay Indian Band Council, [2000] 1 F.C. 513; 178 F.T.R. 210 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [2000] 1 F.C. 325; 243 N.R. 302 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Francis et al. v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake et al., [2003] 4 F.C. 1133; 227 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Leonard v. Gottfriedson (1980), 21 B.C.L.R. 326 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Isolation Sept-Iles v. Bande des Montagnais de Sept-Iles et Maliotenam (1989), 2 C.N.L.R. 49 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 30].

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298; 2000 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 30].

Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710; 299 N.R. 1; 175 B.C.A.C. 161; 289 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 30].

Leonard and Kamloops Indian Band et al. v. Gottfriedson, [1982] 1 C.N.L.R. 60 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

McArthur v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), Registrar (1992), 102 Sask.R. 300; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 666 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 2(3)(b) [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Comtois, Suzanne, Vers la primauté de l'approche pragmatique et fonctionnnelle (2003), pp. 107 to 125 [para. 30].

Saunders, Brian, Kinnear, Meg, Rennie, Donald J., and Garton, Graham, Federal Courts Practice (2006), p. 110 [para. 28].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 71, 72 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Claudine Lagacé and Caroline Biron, for the applicant;

Claude Dallaire and Antoine Aylwin, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Woods & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Fasken Martineau Du Moulin, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents.

These applications were heard on December 13, 2005, at Montreal, Quebec, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 13, 2006.