[1] On the view that I take of this matter, it is not necessary for me to deal with the Defendant's motion to strike certain paragraphs of the Plaintiff's Affidavit and I shall not do so.

[2] The Defendant has moved both for summary judgment and to strike the statement of claim and I think I prefer to proceed on the basis that this is a summary judgment motion because both parties have produced affidavit evidence which normally would not be admissible or cognizable by the Court on a simple motion to strike.

[3] The view which I take is that the Defendant's motion raises a pure question of law and jurisdiction which can readily be determined from the materials I have before me and which has to be resolved against this Court taking jurisdiction. The action seeks declaratory relief primarily for the purposes of declaring that the Plaintiff is a status Indian and entitled to registration as such.

[4] It consequentially seeks declarations that certain paragraphs of the 1985 Indian Act are not charter adequate but that relief is, as I say, wholly consequential upon the primary purpose of the action which is to obtain a declaration that the Plaintiff is an Indian.

[5] The Plaintiff was first registered as an Indian shortly after the coming into force of the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act.

[6] Some ten years later in September of 1998, the Registrar wrote to the Plaintiff indicating an intention to delete her name from the register because of certain information which had come to the Registrar's attention. The Plaintiff responded to that letter through a letter from her son in early December of 1998, in which he brought certain facts to the Registrar's attention and indicated that he thought his mother ought to continue to be on the register. The letter does not indicate that it is a protest under the Act.

[7] In February of 1999, the Registrar deleted the Plaintiff's name from the register and informed her in writing of that fact and also informed her of her right to protest that deletion and how she should go about doing that.

[8] A little over a month later in March of 1999, counsel for the Plaintiff wrote to the Registrar indicating an intention to file a protest but no protest was ever filed. This action was launched by the filing of a Statement of Claim in December of 2000. Neither that Statement of Claim nor a subsequent Amended Statement of Claim makes any reference to any protest.

[9] It is worth noting that the Statement of Defence filed in early 2001 draws attention to the fact that no protest had been made and that at the time it was served the Plaintiff could still have timely filed a protest.

[10] Sections 14.2 and 14.3 of the Indian Act read:

Protests

14.2 (1) A protest may be made in respect of the inclusion or addition of the name of a person in, or the omission or deletion of the name of a person from, the Indian Register, or a Band List maintained in the Department, within three years after the inclusion or addition, or omission or deletion, as the case may be, by notice in writing to the Registrar, containing a brief statement of the grounds therefor.

Protestations

14.2(1) Une protestation peut être formulée, par avis écrit au registraire renfermant un bref exposé des motifs

écrit au registraire renfermant un bref exposé des motifs invoqués, contre l'inclusion ou l'addition du nom d'une personne dans le registre des Indiens ou une liste de bande tenue au ministère ou contre l'omission ou le retranchement de son nom de ce registre ou d'une telle liste dans les trois ans suivant soit l'inclusion ou l'addition, soit l'omission ou le retranchement.

Protest in respect of Band List

(2) A protest may be made under this section in respect of the Band List of a band by the council of the band, any member of the band or the person in respect of whose name the protest is made or that person's representative.

Protest in respect of Indian Register

(3) A protest may be made under this section in respect of the Indian Register by the person in respect of whose name the protest is made or that person's representative.

Onus of proof

(4) The onus of establishing the grounds of a protest under this section lies on the person making the protest.

Registrar to cause investigation

(5) Where a protest is made to the Registrar under this section, the Registrar shall cause an investigation to be made into the matter and render a decision.

Evidence

(6) For the purposes of this section, the Registrar may receive such evidence on oath, on affidavit or in any other manner, whether or not admissible in a court of law, as the Registrar, in his discretion, sees fit or deems just.

Decision final

(7) Subject to section 14.3, the decision of the Registrar under subsection (5) is final and conclusive.

R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4.

Protestation relative à la liste de bande

(2) Une protestation peut être formulée en vertu du présent article à l'égard d'une liste de bande par le conseil de cette bande, un membre de celle-ci ou la personne dont le nom fait l'objet de la protestation ou son représentant.

Protestation relative au registre des

Indiens

(3) Une protestation peut être formulée en vertu du présent article à l'égard du registre des Indiens par la personne dont le nom fait l'objet de la protestation ou son représentant.

Charge de la preuve

(4) La personne qui formule la protestation prévue au présent article a la charge d'en prouver le bien-fondé.

Le registraire fait tenir une enquête

(5) Lorsqu'une protestation lui est adressée en vertu du présent article, le registraire fait tenir une enquête sur la question et rend une décision.

Preuve

(6) Pour l'application du présent article, le registraire peut recevoir toute preuve présentée sous serment, par affidavit ou autrement, si celui-ci, à son appréciation, l'estime indiquée ou équitable, que cette preuve soit ou non admissible devant les tribunaux.

Décision finale

(7) Sous réserve de l'article 14.3, la décision du registraire visée au paragraphe (5) est définitive et sans appel.

L.R.C. 1985, ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4.

Appeal

14.3 (1) Within six months after the Registrar renders a decision on a protest under section 14.2,

(a) in the case of a protest in respect of the Band List of a band, the council of the band, the person by whom the protest was made, or the person in respect of whose name the protest was made or that person's representative, or

(b) in the case of a protest in respect of the Indian Register, the person in respect of whose name the protest was made or that person's representative,

may, by notice in writing, appeal the decision to a court referred to in subsection (5).

Copy of notice of appeal to the

Registrar

(2) Where an appeal is taken under this section, the person who takes the appeal shall forthwith provide the Registrar with a copy of the notice of appeal.

Material to be filed with the court by

Registrar

(3) On receipt of a copy of a notice of appeal under subsection (2), the Registrar shall forthwith file with the court a copy of the decision being appealed together with all documentary evidence considered in arriving at that decision and any recording or transcript of any oral proceedings related thereto that were held before the Registrar.

Decision

(4) The court may, after hearing an appeal under this section,

(a) affirm, vary or reverse the decision of the Registrar; or

(b) refer the subject-matter of the appeal back to the Registrar for reconsideration or further investigation.

Court

(5) An appeal may be heard under this section

(a) in the Province of Quebec, before the Superior Court for the district in which the band is situated or in which the person who made the protest resides, or for such other district as the Minister may designate;

(a.1) in the Province of Ontario, before the Superior Court of Justice;

(b) in the Province of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, before the Court of Queen's Bench;

(c.1)

[Repealed, 1992, c. 51, s. 54]

(d) in the Province of Nova Scotia or British Columbia, in Yukon or in the Northwest Territories, before the Supreme Court; or

e) in Nunavut, before the Nunavut Court of Justice.

Appel

14.3 (1) Dans les six mois suivant la date de la décision du registraire sur une protestation prévue à l'article 14.2, peuvent, par avis écrit, en interjeter appel devant le tribunal visé au paragraphe (5):

a) s'il s'agit d'une protestation formulée à l'égard d'une liste de bande, le conseil de la bande, la personne qui a formulé la protestation ou la personne dont le nom fait l'objet de la protestation ou son représentant;

b) s'il s'agit d'une protestation formulée à l'égard du registre des Indiens, la personne dont le nom a fait l'objet de la protestation ou son représentant.

Copie de l'avis d'appel au registraire

(2) Lorsqu'il est interjeté appel en vertu du présent article, l'appelant transmet sans délai au registraire une copie de l'avis d'appel.

Documents à déposer par le registraire

(3) Sur réception de la copie de l'avis d'appel prévu au paragraphe (2), le registraire dépose sans délai au tribunal une copie de la décision en appel, toute la preuve documentaire prise en compte pour la décision, ainsi que l'enregistrement ou la transcription des débats devant le registraire.

Décision

(4) Le tribunal peut, à l'issue de l'audition de l'appel prévu au présent article:

a) soit confirmer, modifier ou renverser la décision du registraire;

b) soit renvoyer la question en appel au registraire pour réexamen ou nouvelle enquête.

Tribunal

(5) L'appel prévu au présent article peut être entendu:

a) dans la province de Québec, par la Cour supérieure du district où la bande est située ou dans lequel réside la personne qui a formulé la protestation, ou de tel autre district désigné par le ministre;

a.1) dans la province d'Ontario, par la Cour supérieure de justice;

b) dans la province du Nouveau-Brunswick, du Manitoba, de la Saskatchewan ou d'Alberta, par la Cour du Banc de la Reine;

c) dans les provinces de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard et de Terre-Neuve, par la Section de première instance de la Cour suprême;

c.1)

[Abrogé, 1992, ch. 51, art. 54]

d)dans les provinces de la Nouvelle-Écosse et de la Colombie- Britannique, au Yukon et dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, par la Cour suprême;

e) au Nunavut, par la Cour de justice.

[11] In my view, Sections 14.2 and 14.3 of the Indian Act contain a complete code for the determination of questions of Indian status in a case such as this. It provides for a protest from the Registrar's decision. That protest is made to the Registrar who is then instructed to conduct an enquiry. Upon the Registrar deciding that protest there has created a Right of Appeal to the Provincial Superior Courts. That Right of Appeal is of critical importance.

[12] First of all, in my view, it excludes this Court's jurisdiction in a case such as this. Earlier cases held that this Court could make declarations with respect to Indian status under the previous provisions of the Indian Act but it must be remembered that since that time the Federal Courts Act has been amended, and where this Court previously had exclusive jurisdiction with respect to certain actions against the federal Crown, that jurisdiction is now concurrent, and more importantly, is excluded in cases where jurisdiction is given to the provincial Superior Courts.

[13] Subsection 17(6) of the Federal Courts Act reads:

Federal Court has no jurisdiction

(6) If an Act of Parliament confers jurisdiction in respect of a matter on a court constituted or established by or under a law of a province, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of the same matter unless the Act expressly confers that jurisdiction on that court.

Incompétence de la Cour fédérale

(6) Elle n'a pas compétence dans les cas où une loi fédérale donne compétence à un tribunal constitué ou maintenu sous le régime d'une loi provinciale sans prévoir expressément la compétence de la Cour fédérale.

[14] This is precisely such a case. Subsection 17(6) of the Federal Courts Act has the effect of removing this Court's jurisdiction in the circumstances envisaged by Sections 14.2 and 14.3 of the Indian Act. There is a complete code as I say of procedure laid down for protesting the Registrar's decision and making an alternate determination of a person's right to Indian status in the circumstances such as they obtained here.

[15] I do not need to deal and do not deal with some other possible hypothetical situation where there is not a decision by the Registrar. But certainly in the circumstances of this case, in my view, the Plaintiff was obliged to follow the procedure laid down in Section 14.2 and 14.3 of the Indian Act.

[16] I don't think it is necessary that I should go into the question which was debated at some length as to whether or not that is an adequate remedy. I would say that as a matter of first impression any provision which provides for recourse to the provincial Superior Courts and thereafter of course on possibly as far as the Supreme Court of Canada is likely to be viewed as an adequate remedy. I don't think it is necessary that we should go that far. It think it is enough that I should say that here, this Court's jurisdiction is excluded by the operation of Subsection 17.6 of the Federal Courts Act. And the remedy which is provided namely recourse to the provincial Superior Courts, is a forum where the Plaintiff can have full opportunity to vent all her constitutional, charter and other arguments. I think it is a pity that she did not for whatever reason have recourse to the procedure that was provided for her in the statute.

[17] In the result, I find that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the present action and it will be dismissed., the motion for summary judgment being therefore allowed.

[18] I understand that the Plaintiff is a lady of considerable age and limited means, and I would not view this as being a case where an Order for costs should be made.

"James K. Hugessen"

JUDGE

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: T-2311-00

STYLE OF CAUSE: OCTAVIE CALLIHOO

Plaintiff

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT

OF CANADA as represented by

THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Defendant

PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING: September 24, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER : HUGESSEN J.

DATED: September 24, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Ranji Jeerakathil FOR PLAINTIFF

Mr. Kevin P. Kimmis

Mr. Dale Slaferek FOR DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Ackroyd, Piasta, Roth & Day

Edmonton, Alberta FOR PLAINTIFF

Morris A. Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR DEFENDANT

You are here

Callihoo v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2004 FC 1312

Citations2004 FC 1312

Case tabs

Citations
2004 FC 1312