Bugle v. Cardinal, docket T-411-97

     T-411-97

B E T W E E N:

     ROSAIRE BUGLE ET AL

     Applicants

     - and -

     ALPHONSE LAMEMAN

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

CAMPBELL J.

     Let the attached transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, the 22^nd day of April, 1997, now edited, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.

                         Douglas R. Campbell

                         Judge

OTTAWA

May 7, 1997

THE COURT:

     This decision which I'm about to make concerns the validity of the actions taken by the Applicants in calling, conducting, and taking action upon the February 8th, 1997 meeting, which was a challenge to Mr. Alphonse Lameman's authority to hold the office of Chief, by using the provisions of Sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Beaver Lake Tribal Election Law. Whether I can properly consider what occurred at the meeting depends upon some findings about the correct legal interpretation to be given to each of these sections, and in particular, the whole of Section 10 of the Tribal Election Law.

     First, I find that the Tribal Election Law is the all-encompassing code of legal authority to elect and remove a Chief and Council of the Beaver Lake First Nation. Thus, it is only within the words of this law itself that any authority can be found to remove Chief Lameman from his office. I find that the words of the Tribal Election Law must be strictly construed; that is, I cannot be liberal in interpreting their meaning because, in my view, the results of removal from office are so severe that a strict interpretation is required.

     Section 10(d) of the Tribal Election Law reads:

     This fact of ineligibility for such a lengthy time, I think, makes it absolutely essential that the rules regarding removal must be meticulously followed.

     Now, regarding Section 10(a), the clear wording of this section provided that if "during the term" of Chief Lameman's office or his period of holding office he is found guilty by a court -- which I know clearly means a court of law -- of a certain quality of offense, which is set out in that section, if these things occur, then an event is triggered, and the event that is triggered is the automatic forfeiture of his office.

     I find that on the clear wording of this section this provision only has application respecting events which occur during the present term of his holding the position of Chief.

     Now, regarding Section 10(b). 10(b) is a technically-worded section. It allows that a Chief or Councillor who has been found guilty of neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or misconduct reflecting on the dignity and integrity of the Beaver Lake Tribe may be removed from office.

     But on the clear words of the section, there is a condition that first must be met. The finding of any of these things occurring, that is whether, say, Chief Lameman is guilty of any one of these three things, being neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or misconduct, must be, on the words of this section, "pursuant to regulations."

     It is not disputed that there are no regulations. This being the case, I find that Section 10(b) is inoperative. It can become operative if appropriate regulations are passed, but this is not the case now. Having made this finding, I do not intend to interpret the meaning of the section, since I find it cannot be used to challenge Mr. Lameman's authority to hold office.

     Thus, I find that the only provision of the Tribal Election Law that is available is Section 10(a), and having regard to my finding which I have just mentioned a few moments ago that on the application of this section, since Mr. Lameman was not found guilty during his term of office (the date of the finding of guilt being November 18, 1996, and the election date being November 27, 1996) I find this section cannot be used on these facts to successfully challenge his authority.