Docket: T-1878-13
Citation:
2014 FC 1214
Ottawa, Ontario, December 15, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SHARON PELLISSEY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
PEHDZEH KI FIRST NATION; PEHDZEH KI FIRST NATION COUNCIL AND
COUNCILLOR ELSIE HARDISTY, COUNCILLOR LISA MOSES,
COUNCILLOR GLORIA HARDSTY AND COUNCILLOR MARY CLILLE
|
|
Respondents
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Ms Sharon Pellissey served as Chief of the
Pehdzeh Ki First Nation in British Columbia from July 25, 2013 until October
29, 2013, when the First Nation’s Council issued a resolution removing her as
Chief.
[2]
Ms Pellissey contends that the First Nation
treated her unfairly as she was not given adequate notice of the proceedings
that led to a vote to remove her, or the particulars of the grounds for her
removal. She also maintains that the decision to remove her was unreasonable
because it was unsupported by evidence of misconduct on her part.
[3]
Looking at the circumstances as a whole, I am
not satisfied that Ms Pellissey was treated unfairly or that the First Nation’s
decision was unreasonable. Ms Pellissey was aware of the allegations against
her, informed of the proceedings, and given a chance to defend herself.
Further, the First Nation’s decision was based on evidence relating to Ms
Pellissey’s conduct leading up to the meeting and, therefore, was not
unreasonable.
[4]
Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for
judicial review. As Ms Pellissey did not appear, either personally or through
counsel, at the scheduled hearing of this application for judicial review, I
have relied on the written materials filed by the parties.
A.
The First Nation’s Decision
[5]
The First Nation Council held a meeting on
October 22, 2013 that was attended by four Councillors, but not Ms Pellissey. Her
brother, who was also a Councillor, did not attend either. The Councillors
passed a motion of non-confidence in Ms Pellissey as Chief based on four
grounds: (i) breach of professional conduct; (ii) public intoxication; (iii)
disclosure of confidential information; and (iv) lack of communication. The
Council decided that the matter should be put to a public vote.
[6]
At the time of the October 22, 2013 meeting, Ms
Pellissey was attending another meeting in Hay River, Northwest Territories.
The Council had requested that Ms Pellissey not attend the Hay River meeting due
to concerns about her intoxication, and sent a letter to Hay River to that
effect. Ms Pellissey received the letter but attended the meeting anyway.
[7]
A public meeting was held in the community on
October 28, 2013. Members of the community received notice of the meeting, as
did Ms Pellissey. The allegations against Ms Pellissey were read aloud at the
meeting, and those in attendance, including Ms Pellissey, were permitted to
speak. A majority of those in attendance voted to hold a by-election to elect a
new Chief. The vote was confirmed by the First Nation’s Council the next day by
way of a Band Council Resolution.
(1)
Was Ms Pellissey treated unfairly?
[8]
Ms Pellissey argues that the process by which
she was purportedly removed as Chief was unauthorized by any accepted band
custom and, in addition, was unfair. In particular, she maintains that she did
not receive proper notice of the public meeting, or an agenda, or an adequate
opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.
[9]
Ms Pellissey also argues that the First Nation
Council treated her unfairly in respect of its previous meeting on October 22,
2013. That meeting was deliberately held in her and her brother’s absence and,
in effect, resulted in a decision to remove her as Chief without any input from
her.
[10]
I do not agree that Ms Pellissey was treated
unfairly.
[11]
Regarding the October 22, 2013 Band Council
meeting, it took place as a result of the Council’s concern that Ms Pellissey
was conducting Band business (ie, attending the meeting in Hay River)
while intoxicated. It was held on an urgent basis. Ms Pellissey was aware of
the Council’s concern. In any event, given the subject matter of the meeting,
she would not have been entitled to attend. Ms Pellissey’s brother was informed
of the meeting, but declined to attend based on a conflict of interest.
[12]
As I see it, no definitive decision was taken at
the October 22, 2013 meeting. Councillors recorded a vote of non-confidence in
Ms Pellissey and drafted, but did not sign, a Band Council Resolution removing
her from office. The Council decided to put the matter to a public vote, which
led to the public meeting on October 28, 2013.
[13]
In respect of the public meeting, notices were
delivered throughout the community, including to Ms Pellissey. In addition, Ms
Pellissey was informed directly about the subject matter of the meeting. The
specific allegations were also read aloud at the meeting, and Ms Pellissey was
given ample opportunity to address them. A vote was called, and a majority
expressed its wish to hold a by-election for a new Chief. That vote was
confirmed by a Band Council resolution the next day.
[14]
I can see nothing unfair about this process. Ms Pellissey
was given notice, advised of the allegations in issue, provided an opportunity
to address those allegations, and given the benefit of a public vote. After the
vote, Ms Pellissey wrote to the Council and expressed her thanks, requested a
severance package, and asked for her old job back as Lands Officer. She did not
complain about the process by which she was removed.
[15]
I would also note that the evidence shows that
the process employed by the First Nation here had been used in the past for
purposes of removing a chief from office.
B.
Was the First Nation’s decision unreasonable?
[16]
Ms Pellissey argues that the decision to remove
her was unreasonable, as it was not based on any reliable evidence of
misconduct on her part.
[17]
In my view, the record does not support Ms
Pellissey’s position.
[18]
In addition to the evidence described above, the
Senior Administrative Officer for the First Nation received telephone calls
from members of the community about Ms Pellissey’s conduct. Her behaviour was
inconsistent with her oath of office in which she specifically promised to act
as a role model for the community, and where appropriate, to maintain strict
confidentiality.
[19]
Based of the evidence, the decision to remove Ms
Pellissey as Chief was not unreasonable.
II.
Conclusion and Disposition
[20]
The process by which Ms Pellissey was removed
from office was not unfair; nor was the outcome unreasonable. I must,
therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review, with costs.
Email this Content