Joe v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 145
Chief Michael Joe, Marilyn John, Rembert Jeddore, George Drew, Yvonne Benoit, John N. Jeddore, which individuals are suing personally and on behalf of the Conne River Band and all members of the Micmac Indian Community of Conne River, Newfoundland Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada Respondent
and
The Attorney General for the Province of Alberta, the Attorney General for the Province of Newfoundland and the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario Interveners
indexed as: joe v. canada
File No.: 17831.
1986: October 2.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Estey, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Courts ‑‑ Jurisdiction ‑‑ Federal Court of Canada ‑‑ Appellants seeking a declaration that a piece of land where they lived in Newfoundland is an Indian reserve ‑‑ Portion of appellants’ statement of claim struck out ‑‑ Federal Court having no jurisdiction to make such a declaration.
Appellants sued the respondent in the Federal Court, Trial Division for a declaration, first, that they had the status of Indians and, second, that a piece of land where they lived in the Province of Newfoundland, and which could otherwise have been the property of that Province, was an Indian reserve. Respondent made a motion to strike out the part of the statement of claim which relates to the second declaration. The Trial Division dismissed the motion but the judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the main and primary effect of the declaration sought by the appellants would be to affect the property rights of the Province of Newfoundland and that such a declaration against the Province could not be made in an action directed against the respondent. Moreover, as s. 17 of the Federal Court Act did not give the Court jurisdiction to grant relief against a province, the relief sought by the appellants could not be granted by the Court even if the Province of Newfoundland were a defendant in this action.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (1983), 49 N.R. 198, [1984] 1 C.N.L.R. 96, setting aside a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing respondent's motion to strike out portions of appellants' statement of claim. Appeal dismissed.
James O’Reilly, Darlene A. Pearson and Richard Leblanc, for the appellants.
Yvan G. Whitehall, Q.C., and Judith A. McCann, for the respondent.
William Henkel, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.
Colin K. Irving and R. Torralbo, for the intervener the Attorney General of Newfoundland.
J. T. S. McCabe, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1. The Chief Justice ‑‑ We find no error in the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal and by reason of this it is unnecessary to answer the constitutional questions. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellants: Byers, Casgrain, Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta: The Department of the Attorney General, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Newfoundland: Colin K. Irving, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Email this Content