Date:
20100421
Docket: T-654-09
Citation: 2010 FC 432
Ottawa, Ontario, April 21,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mainville
BETWEEN:
CASEY RATT,
RICKEY DECOURSAY, ROGER JEROME,
WAYNE PAPATIE and DONAT THUSKY IN THEIR
CAPACITY
AS CHIEF AND BAND COUNCIL and THE ELDERS
OF
MITCHIKINABIKOK INIK (ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE)
and
the PEOPLE
Applicants
(Respondents in this Motion)
and
JEAN
MAURICE MATCHEWAN, BENJAMIN NOTTAWAY,
EUGENE NOTTAWAY, JOEY DECOURSAY and DAVID
WAWATIE IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE
PURPORTED NEW
CHIEF AND BAND COUNCIL OF THE ALGONQUINS
OF BARRIERE
LAKE CUSTOMARY BAND COUNCIL and
EDDY NOTAWAY, MICHEL THUSKY, JEANNINE
MATCHEWAN
and LOUISA PAPATIE, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
THE PURPORTED
MEMBERS
OF THE MITCHIKANIBIKOK INIK ELDERS COUNCIL
Respondents
(Moving Party)
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
concerns a motion submitted by the Respondents, and subsequently amended, for
reconsideration under subsection 397(1)of the Federal Courts Rules of my
decision in this case
T-654-09 dated February 17, 2010 bearing
citation number 2010 FC 160.
[2]
This
motion seeks that I declare that the present customary council of the Algonquin
of Barriere Lake consists of Jean-Paul Ratt, Benjamin Nottaway, Moise Papatie and
David Wawatie who had resigned as councillors to make way for the new Chief and
council whose selection process was declared invalid pursuant to my decision
dated February 17, 2010.
[3]
The
Applicants contest this motion for reconsideration on the basis that it does
not comply with Rule 397 and rather seeks to obtain a new judgment on an issue
which was never litigated.
[4]
The
motion for reconsideration is rejected for the reasons which follow.
[5]
First,
neither Jean-Paul Ratt nor Moise Papatie are named parties to these
proceedings, and consequently any declaration concerning these individuals made
without them being party to the proceedings would be improper.
[6]
Second,
subsection 397(1) of the Federal Courts Rules is limited to situations
where the order does not accord with any reasons given, or a matter that should
have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. This is not
the case here.
[7]
Indeed,
the original application as submitted by the Applicants questioned the
authority of the Respondents to act as Chief and Council and as members of an
Elders Council and also sought certain declarations related to the process
leading to the selection of certain of the Respondents as Chief and Council.
[8]
As I
noted in my decision dated February 17, 2010, in light of the fact the
Applicants were raising as a first ground to support their original application
their own legitimacy as the validly selected Chief and Council, the process
leading to their selection was itself an issue which needed to be reviewed in
order to reach a conclusion on the original application.
[9]
However,
here the Respondents now seek from me an ex post facto declaration on an
issue that was not necessary to determine in order to reach the conclusions of
my February 17, 2010 decision and that was not raised by either the Applicants
or the Respondents in the proceedings leading to that decision.
[10]
It
would therefore be improper for me to respond favorably to the motion for
reconsideration brought by the Respondents: Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc.,
[2004] FC 455, 253 F.T.R. 122.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that
the motion for reconsideration brought by the Respondents is dismissed with
costs in favor of the Applicants.
"Robert
M. Mainville"
Email this Content