Date: 20260609

Docket: T-1381-24

Citation: 2026 FC 755

Ottawa, Ontario, June 9, 2026

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] The applicants brought an application for judicial review of a decision of the Nunatsiavut Government regarding the allocation of commercial fishing quota. I must dismiss the application because only the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Nunatsiavut Government such as the decision at issue.

I. Background

[2] The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement [the Agreement] establishes the Nunatsiavut Government, a form of self-government for Inuit in Nunatsiavut, a region encompassing most of Labrador’s northern coast.

[3] Pursuant to chapter 13 of the Agreement, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans issues a communal licence to the Nunatsiavut Government for the commercial fishing of shrimp and establishes yearly quotas. The Nunatsiavut Government, in turn, is responsible for allocating its quota to beneficiaries of the Agreement and, in effect, determining who may harvest shrimp under the communal fishing licence.

[4] The Nunatsiavut Government adopted a Policy to govern the designation of beneficiaries who are allowed to fish under the communal licence. The Policy was initially adopted in 2010 and contemplated allocations covering a one-year period only. The Policy was subsequently reviewed to allow for multi-year designations. The new version of the Policy was adopted in 2021. Under the Policy, multi-year applications are prioritized for review. The first five-year designations were made in 2022.

[5] In 2024, the Applicants, who are beneficiaries under the Agreement, submitted applications for single-year fishing allocations under the applicable Policy. Each of the Applicants had participated in previous fishing seasons, having been designated in prior years and received a quota for shrimp, with individual histories of allocations ranging from 6 to 21 years.

[6] At the same time, Mr. Greg Flowers submitted an application for a multi-year designation. The Committee tasked with applying the Policy reviewed all application and issued a recommendation to the Deputy Minister. As a result, Mr. Flowers obtained a five-year designation and approximately 43% of the communal shrimp quota for that year. The applicants, however, did not receive any shrimp fishing quota.

[7] The applicants are now seeking judicial review of the 2024 quota allocation.

II. Analysis

[8] This application for judicial review must be dismissed because the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction over decisions made by the Nunatsiavut Government regarding the designation of who may fish under a communal licence.

[9] Section 17.31.22 of the Agreement grants jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in respect of the judicial review of decisions such as the one at issue. It reads:

[10] Subsection 6(1) of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, SC 2005, c 27, provides:

[11] Therefore, section 17.31.22 of the Agreement prevails over section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7.

[12] The applicants, however, argue that the attribution of jurisdiction in section 17.31.22 is not exclusive. Thus, the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador would have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. I am unable to agree.

[13] Concurrent jurisdiction is not in itself an unusual concept. For example, the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters pursuant to sections 17, 20(2) and 22 of the Federal Courts Act. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any example of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to judicial review, and the parties did not provide any. Indeed, the Federal Courts Act was enacted to overcome the difficulties associated with the concurrent jurisdiction of provincial superior courts over the judicial review of federal decision makers: Strickland v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37 at paragraphs 17–18, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 713. It would take much more explicit language to conclude that the parties to the Agreement intended to create a situation of concurrent jurisdiction in matters of judicial review.

[14] Adopting the applicants’ submission would also deprive the parties to the Agreement of their choice of forum for the resolution of disputes concerning the legality of decisions made by the Nunatsiavut Government. Several land claims agreements concluded over the last decades contain provisions similar to section 17.31.22. Holding that the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction by implication would undo the design choices of the parties to these agreements.

[15] Moreover, it bears mentioning that section 3.12.2 of the Agreement grants jurisdiction to the Federal Court over a discrete set of issues, namely, enrolment matters. See, for instance, Way v Nunatsiavut Government, 2024 FC 886. This tends to show that the parties to the Agreement carefully considered which court would have jurisdiction over which issues. To hold that jurisdiction is concurrent unless it is expressly declared to be exclusive would fly in the face of the precise allocation of jurisdiction in the Agreement.

[16] The applicants also argued that the Federal Court has jurisdiction because the Nunatsiavut Government’s power to designate who may fish under a communal licence originates in the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14, a federal statute. Even if this were true, section 17.31.22 of the Agreement ascribes jurisdiction based on the identity of the decision maker, rather than the source of the power that the decision maker exercises. In this respect, it fundamentally differs from the definition of “federal board, commission or other tribunal” which governs the availability of judicial review pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Court Act. Pursuant to the Federal Courts Act, one must focus on the source of the power, not the identity of the decision maker: Anisman v Canada (Border Services Agency), 2010 FCA 52 at paragraphs 29–30; Salt River First Nation #195 v Shanks, 2025 FCA 158. Here, the fact that the decision challenged was made by the Nunatsiavut Government, irrespective of its source, is sufficient to trigger section 17.31.22 of the Agreement and to exclude the operation of section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

III. Disposition

[17] As this Court does not have jurisdiction, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. Considering all the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no costs should be awarded.

JUDGMENT in T-1381-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No costs are awarded.

"Sébastien Grammond"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: