Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation et al. v. Canada, (1999) 164 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 09, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 164 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation v. Can. (1999), 164 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.009

The Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation, The Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, The Opaskwayak Cree Nation, The Sapotewayek Cree Nation, The Mosakahiken Cree Nation, The Grand Rapids First Nation, and the Chemawawin Cree Nation (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (defendant)

(T-383-98)

Indexed As: Wuskwi Sipihk Cree Nation et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

January 21, 1999.

Summary:

In 1964, the federal and Manitoba Crowns divided jurisdiction and responsibility for health services to, inter alia, First Nations communities. The plaintiff First Nations communities questioned the constitutionality of the agreement and commenced an action for declaratory and mandatory relief against the federal Crown. The federal Crown wished to bring a third party claim against the Manitoba Crown, to seek indemnity if necessary. The federal Crown applied under s. 50.1(1) of the Federal Court Act for a mandatory stay of the plaintiffs' action.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant a stay on procedural and substantive grounds.

Courts - Topic 4008

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Provincial Crown - In 1964, the federal and Manitoba Crowns divided jurisdiction and responsibility for health services to, inter alia, First Nations communities - The plaintiff First Nations communities ques­tioned the constitutionality of the agree­ment and commenced an action for declar­atory and mandatory relief against the federal Crown - The federal Crown wished to bring a third party claim against the Manitoba Crown, to seek indemnity if necessary - The federal Crown applied under s. 50.1(1) of the Federal Court Act for a mandatory stay of the plaintiffs' action - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant a stay on procedural and substantive grounds - First, the plaintiffs were ambushed by the lack of written represen­tations in the motion record - In any event, a mandatory stay issued only where the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the third party claim - Since s. 19 of the Fed­eral Court Act and s. 1 of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction Act of Manitoba gave the Federal Court jurisdiction over the proposed third party claim, the federal Crown was not entitled to a mandatory stay.

Courts - Topic 4054

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Indians - [See Courts - Topic 4008 ].

Courts - Topic 4067

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Third party claims - [See Courts - Topic 4008 ].

Crown - Topic 4151

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Practice - Stay of proceedings - [See Courts - Topic 4008 ].

Cases Noticed:

Fairford First Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 96 F.T.R. 172 (T.D.), affd. (1997), 205 N.R. 380 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Westwood Shipping Lines Inc. v. Geo International Inc. et al., [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 370 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 5].

Prince Edward Island v. Canada, [1978] 1 F.C. 533; 20 N.R. 91; 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 477; 33 A.P.R. 477 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Johnston (1966), 56 D.L.R.(2d) 749 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 12].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 13].

Loring v. Canada, [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 293 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Schneider v. British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 16].

Harris et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue (1999), 161 F.T.R. 288 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 19 [para. 6]; sect. 50.1(1) [para. 4].

Federal Courts Jurisdiction Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. 270; C.C.S.M., c. 270, sect. 1 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Michael Jerch, for the plaintiffs;

Antoine Fréchette, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Savino & Co., Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the plaintiffs;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard on September 9, 1998, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before Har­grave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 21, 1999.