Cardinal v. Prince, 2009 FCA 40

Date: 20090210

Docket: A-568-08

Citation: 2009 FCA 40    

 

CORAM:       NOËL J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

                        PELLETIER J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

JARET CARDINAL, RONALD WILLIER, RUSSELL WILLIER

 and SUCKER CREEK FIRST NATION #150A

Appellants

and

GEORGE PRINCE AND PAULETTE CAMPIOU

Respondents

 

 

 

Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on February 10, 2009.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on February 10, 2009.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                    PELLETIER, J.A.

                                                                                                                       

 

Date: 20090210

Docket: A-568-08

Citation: 2009 FCA 40

 

CORAM:       NOËL J.A.

                        NADON J.A.

                        PELLETIER J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

JARET CARDINAL, RONALD WILLIER,

 RUSSELL WILLIER and SUCKER CREEK FIRST NATION #150A

Appellants

and

GEORGE PRINCE AND PAULETTE CAMPIOU

                                                                                                                                    Respondents

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on February 10, 2009)

PELLETIER J.A.:

[1]               Despite the determined argument of counsel, we are not persuaded that Mr. Justice Kelen erred in his interpretation of the Customary Band Election Regulations of the Sucker Creek First Nation.

 

[2]               While the provisions of section 15 are not free from doubt, the interpretations adopted by Justice Kelen gives them a coherent meaning and, in our view, is correct.

 

[3]               As for the argument that the Court ought not to have entertained the application for judicial review because the Respondents had an adequate alternate remedy, we note that the procedure under the Regulations would require councillors against whom allegations had not been proven to run for re-election in order to retain their posts. The remedy for re-instatement is not available under Regulation. We see no error in Justice Kelen’s decision on this point.

 

[4]               In light of our conclusions on these issues, it is not necessary to deal with the issue of procedural fairness.

 

[5]               The appeal will be dismissed with costs.  

                                                                                                            “Denis Pelletier”

                                                                                                ____________________________

                                                                                                                        J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-568-08

 

APPEAL FROM A REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT OF

JUSTICE KELEN DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2008, DOCKET NO.: T-1307-08

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              JARET CARDINAL ET AL. v.

                                                                                                GEORGE PRINCE ET AL.

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Edmonton, Alberta

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          February 10, 2009

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       NOËL, NADON, PELLETIER, JJ.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            PELLETIER J.A.

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Priscilla Kennedy	FOR THE APPELLANT/ APPLICANT
Thomas Owen	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Davis LLP	FOR THE APPELLANT/ APPLICANT
Owen Law	FOR THE RESPONDENT