Canada (Registrar of Indian Register) v. Sinclair

Canada (Registrar of Indian Register) v. Sinclair
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-04-11
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 319
File numbers
T-141-99
Decision Content
Date: 20010411
Docket:T-141-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 319
BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR OF THE INDIAN REGISTER,
INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA,
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicants
- and -
JOHN JEREMIAH SINCLAIR
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] Pursuant to section 18.3 of the Federal Court Act, the Registrar of the Indian Register (the "Registrar") joined by the Attorney General for Canada, referred two questions to the Court for determination.
[2] The first question stated by the Registrar is:
Would I err in law in deciding that, under the provisions of the Indian Act, the Respondent is not entitled to have his name entered on the Indian Register and assigned an Indian Registry number under the said Act?
[3] The hearing on the second question was adjourned because the respondent had not given notice of a constitutional question pursuant to section 57 of the Federal Court Act. However, the second question has a contextual impact on the first question. It reads:
In the event the first question is answered in the negative, would I err in law in deleting the Respondent's name and Indian registry number from the Indian Register pursuant to section 5(3) of the Indian Act, prior to the Respondent exhausting his protest and appeals against my decision under sections 14.2 and 14.3 of the Indian Act, on the basis that the deletion of his name and registry number would, (but for the existence of an interlocutory injunction issued on the 16th of February, 1999 by the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada restraining me from deleting the Respondent's name pending the final disposition of the within proceeding in the Trial Division), cause the Respondent to lose access to the benefits available to him as a Registered Indian residing in the Province of Alberta, pending the determination of his appeals? [emphasis mine]
B. BACKGROUND
[4] John Jeremiah Sinclair (known and referred to in these reasons as Sam Sinclair) is a Metis and a descendant of residents in the geographical area now covered by Treaty No. 8 signed on June 21, 1899. He was born in Slave Lake, Alberta, on November 22, 1926, the son of Alfred Sinclair and Agathe Courteoreille. He resides in Edmonton, Alberta and is married to Edna Mary Pierce, a Cree who is a member of the Driftpile Reserve and descendant of Treaty No. 8.
[5] Sam Sinclair applied to the Registrar to have his name added to the Indian Registry. The registry and the Office of Registrar were created by the Indian Act of 1951. On October 12, 1990, he was advised by the Registrar he was entitled to be registered pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(f) of the 1985 Indian Act since both of his parents were, at the time of their death, entitled to be registered under subsection 6(1) of that Act.
[6] The Registrar explained his father, Alfred Sinclair, was entitled to registration pursuant to subsection 6(2) of the 1985 Indian Act since Alfred Sinclair's mother, Madeleine Hamelin, (Sam Sinclair's paternal grandmother) had her Indian status restored under the 1985 Indian Act amendment having previously lost it when she married Donald Sinclair (Alfred Sinclair's father), a non-Indian. Madeleine Hamelin is deemed registered under paragraph 6(1)(c) of the Act.
[7] The Registrar explained that Sam Sinclair's mother, Agathe Sinclair (née Courteoreille) was entitled to registration under subsection 6(2) of the 1985 Indian Act through her mother, Isabelle Courteoreille (née Cardinal) because Isabelle Courteoreille's parents (John Cardinal and Cécile Labonne) were Indians who did not take scrip and two of Isabelle's siblings became members of the Sucker Creek Band (previously Kinnosayo's Band).
[8] In these reasons, scrip is mentioned several times. Scrip was the consideration a person of Metis background, i.e. a person of mixed Indian and European ancestry (and I make no distinction whether that ancestry was French or English), received for the extinguishment of a land claim title.
[9] In 1898, the federal government established a Commission to negociate the terms of a treaty with the various Indian bands occupying the Athabasca district. A treaty was entered known as Treaty No. 8.
[10] At the same time, a parallel Scrip Commission was set up to investigate Metis claims and determine their acceptability. Scrip, if applied for, could take the form of a land grant (240 acres) or money ($250).
[11] Until its repeal in the Indian Act amendments in 1985, the Indian Act prohibited from being registered as an Indian, a person and his/her descendants who had received lands or money scrip.
[12] As equally important, Metis individuals or family could also choose not to take scrip but enter (or join) the treaty being negotiated. One of the important issues in this reference is under what circumstances was the scope of this entitlement for a Metis.
[13] The central factual focus of this reference is on Isabelle Courteoreille, née Cardinal. She was born in 1862 and married Michel Courteoreille, a Metis, in 1881 at Lesser Slave Lake. While the exact date of her death has not been determined, it is agreed between the parties she died before June 21, 1899, when Treaty 8 was signed and before scrip applications were considered. It is also agreed she did not take scrip nor did anyone take scrip on her behalf. It is agreed Michel Courteoreille took scrip in July of 1899 for himself and his minor children, including his daughter Agathe, Sam Sinclair's mother.
[14] In his scrip application, Michel Courteoreille described both his parents as Metis and said his status and that of his wife Isabelle was Metis.
[15] It is also a fact Isabelle Cardinal's parents took scrip. John Cardinal's scrip application states his parents were Metis and he received no annuity as an Indian nor participated in any grants to Indians.
[16] John Cardinal and Cécile Labonne had seven children alive when scrip applications were taken in connection with Treaty 8.
[17] Of those seven children, all took scrip except Casimir and Sophie, who became members of the Kinnosayo's Band.
[18] Isabelle Courteoreille's five siblings who took scrip described their parents as Metis and said they received no annuities as Indians nor participated in any grants to Indians.
[19] Sam Sinclair's son, Gordon Sinclair, also applied for registration and in 1990 was successful in having his name added to the Indian Register.
[20] The record indicates other persons who may have been related to the Sinclair family also sought registration and it was the Registrar's investigation into these other applications which led the new Registrar, Terry Harris, to advise Gordon Sinclair (Sam Sinclair's son) he had been erroneously registered in the Indian Register.
[21] Gordon Sinclair retained legal counsel. Legal counsel's correspondence was considered to be a protest; the Registrar investigated and on March 26, 1999, decided Gordon Sinclair's name should be deleted from the registry because, in her view, he was not entitled to registration. Gordon Sinclair then appealed, pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Act, the Registrar's decision to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.
[22] On June 1, 1998, Sam Sinclair was informed he was no longer considered by the new Acting Registrar, Miranda McDonald, to be entitled to be registered as an Indian. The Registrar informed Sam Sinclair that unless new information or evidence was produced to refute her findings, she would delete his name from the Indian Registry within ninety (90) days. Sam Sinclair retained legal counsel who corresponded with the Registrar.
[23] Matters were not resolved. Sam Sinclair filed a statement of claim in this Court seeking a declaration sections 5(3), 6 and 14.2(1), (5) and (7) of the Indian Act are unconstitutional on various Charter grounds, (sections 7, 15 and 35).
[24] On February 4, 1999, with the consent of the applicants, an interlocutory injunction was issued by the Associate Chief Justice preventing the deletion of Sam Sinclair's name from the Register pending the outcome of these proceedings. Sam Sinclair's action was then converted into an application for a reference pursuant to section 18.3 of the Federal Court Act and, as noted, two questions were referred to the Court for determination.
C. THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
(1) The 1985 Indian Act
[25] The Indian Act underwent major amendments in 1985 with the coming into force of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the entitlement sections were reformed; one example is the regaining of Indian status by Indian women who had lost status by marrying non-Indian men. The disentitlement sections, which have no relevance in this reference, were curtailed but not completely eliminated.
[26] For the purposes of this reference, certain definitions are important. The current definition of "Indian" introduced in the 1951 Indian Act, when the registry was created, reads:
"Indian" means a person who pursuant to this Act is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian.
[27] Section 5 continues the register, deems the names in the register immediately prior to April 17, 1985 to constitute the Indian Register and empowers the Registrar to delete or add names from the register. Section 5 consolidates what was contained in sections 5 through 8 of the Indian Act, Chapter I-6, R.S.C. 1970, incorporating the relevant provisions of the 1951 Indian Act. Section 5 of the 1985 Indian Act, R.S. 1985, c. I-5, as amended, reads as follows:
5. (1) There shall be maintained in the Department an Indian Register in which shall be recorded the name of every person who is entitled to be registered as an Indian under this Act.
5(2) Existing Indian Register
(2) The names in the Indian Register immediately prior to April 17, 1985 shall constitute the Indian Register on April 17, 1985.
5(3) Deletions and additions
(3) The Registrar may at any time add to or delete from the Indian Register the name of any person who, in accordance with this Act, is entitled or not entitled, as the case may be, to have his name included in the Indian Register.
5(4) Date of change
(4) The Indian Register shall indicate the date on which each name was added thereto or deleted therefrom.
5(5) Application for registration
(5) The name of a person who is entitled to be registered is not required to be recorded in the Indian Register unless an application for registration is made to the Registrar.
R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 5; R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4. [emphasis mine]
5. (1) Est tenu au ministère un registre des Indiens où est consigné le nom de chaque personne ayant le droit d'être inscrite comme Indien en vertu de la présente loi.
5(2) Registre existant
(2) Les noms figurant au registre des Indiens le 16 avril 1985 constituent le registre des Indiens au 17 avril 1985.
5(3) Additions et retranchements
(3) Le registraire peut ajouter au registre des Indiens, ou en retrancher, le nom de la personne qui, aux termes de la présente loi, a ou n'a pas droit, selon le cas, à l'inclusion de son nom dans ce registre.
5(4) Date du changement
(4) Le registre des Indiens indique la date où chaque nom y a été ajouté ou en a été retranché.
5(5) Demande
(5) Il n'est pas requis que le nom d'une personne qui a le droit d'être inscrite soit consigné dans le registre des Indiens, à moins qu'une demande à cet effet soit présentée au registraire.
L.R. (1985), ch. I-5, art. 5; L.R. (1985), ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4.
[28] Sections 6 and 7 deal with persons who are entitled or not entitled to be registered. Those two sections read as follows:
6. (1) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if
(a) that person was registered or entitled to be registered immediately prior to April 17, 1985;
(b) that person is a member of a body of persons that has been declared by the Governor in Council on or after April 17, 1985 to be a band for the purposes of this Act;
(c) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951, under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iv), paragraph 12(1)(b) or subsection 12(2) or under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iii) pursuant to an order made under subsection 109(2), as each provision read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as any of those provisions;
(d) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951, under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iii) pursuant to an order made under subsection 109(1), as each provision read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as any of those provisions;
(e) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951,
(i) under section 13, as it read immediately prior to September 4, 1951, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that section, or
(ii) under section 111, as it read immediately prior to July 1, 1920, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that section; or
(f) that person is a person both of whose parents are or, if no longer living, were at the time of death entitled to be registered under this section.
6(2) Idem
(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).
6(3) Deeming provision
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) and subsection (2),
(a) a person who was no longer living immediately prior to April 17, 1985 but who was at the time of death entitled to be registered shall be deemed to be entitled to be registered under paragraph (1)(a); and
(b) a person described in paragraph (1)(c), (d), (e) or (f) or subsection (2) and who was no longer living on April 17, 1985 shall be deemed to be entitled to be registered under that provision.
R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 6; R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4, c. 43 (4th Supp.), s. 1.
7. (1) The following persons are not entitled to be registered:
(a) a person who was registered under paragraph 11(1)(f), as it read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that paragraph, and whose name was subsequently omitted or deleted from the Indian Register under this Act; or
(b) a person who is the child of a person who was registered or entitled to be registered under paragraph 11(1)(f), as it read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that paragraph, and is also the child of a person who is not entitled to be registered.
7(2) Exception
(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of a female person who was, at any time prior to being registered under paragraph 11(1)(f), entitled to be registered under any other provision of this Act.
7(3) Idem
(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply in respect of the child of a female person who was, at any time prior to being registered under paragraph 11(1)(f), entitled to be registered under any other provision of this Act. [emphasis mine]
R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 7; R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4.
6. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 7, une personne a le droit d'être inscrite si elle remplit une des conditions suivantes_:
a) elle était inscrite ou avait le droit de l'être le 16 avril 1985;
b) elle est membre d'un groupe de personnes déclaré par le gouverneur en conseil après le 16 avril 1985 être une bande pour l'application de la présente loi;
c) son nom a été omis ou retranché du registre des Indiens ou, avant le 4 septembre 1951, d'une liste de bande, en vertu du sous-alinéa 12(1)a)(iv), de l'alinéa 12(1)b) ou du paragraphe 12(2) ou en vertu du sous-alinéa 12(1)a)(iii) conformément à une ordonnance prise en vertu du paragraphe 109(2), dans leur version antérieure au 17 avril 1985, ou en vertu de toute disposition antérieure de la présente loi portant sur le même sujet que celui d'une de ces dispositions;
d) son nom a été omis ou retranché du registre des Indiens ou, avant le 4 septembre 1951, d'une liste de bande, en vertu du sous-alinéa 12(1)a)(iii) conformément à une ordonnance prise en vertu du paragraphe 109(1), dans leur version antérieure au 17 avril 1985, ou en vertu de toute disposition antérieure de la présente loi portant sur le même sujet que celui d'une de ces dispositions;
e) son nom a été omis ou retranché du registre des Indiens ou, avant le 4 septembre 1951, d'une liste de bande_:
(i) soit en vertu de l'article 13, dans sa version antérieure au 4 septembre 1951, ou en vertu de toute disposition antérieure de la présente loi portant sur le même sujet que celui de cet article,
(ii) soit en vertu de l'article 111, dans sa version antérieure au 1er juillet 1920, ou en vertu de toute disposition antérieure de la présente loi portant sur le même sujet que celui de cet article;
f) ses parents ont tous deux le droit d'être inscrits en vertu du présent article ou, s'ils sont décédés, avaient ce droit à la date de leur décès.
6(2) Idem
(2) Sous réserve de l'article 7, une personne a le droit d'être inscrite si l'un de ses parents a le droit d'être inscrit en vertu du paragraphe (1) ou, s'il est décédé, avait ce droit à la date de son décès.
6(3) Présomption
(3) Pour l'application de l'alinéa (1)f) et du paragraphe (2)_:
a) la personne qui est décédée avant le 17 avril 1985 mais qui avait le droit d'être inscrite à la date de son décès est réputée avoir le droit d'être inscrite en vertu de l'alinéa (1)a);
b) la personne visée aux alinéas (1)c), d), e) ou f) ou au paragraphe (2) et qui est décédée avant le 17 avril 1985 est réputée avoir le droit d'être inscrite en vertu de ces dispositions.
L.R. (1985), ch. I-5, art. 6; L.R. (1985), ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4, ch. 43 (4e suppl.), art. 1.
7(1) Personnes n'ayant pas droit à l'inscription
7. (1) Les personnes suivantes n'ont pas le droit d'être inscrites_:
a) celles qui étaient inscrites en vertu de l'alinéa 11(1)f), dans sa version antérieure au 17 avril 1985, ou en vertu de toute disposition antérieure de la présente loi portant sur le même sujet que celui de cet alinéa, et dont le nom a ultérieurement été omis ou retranché du registre des Indiens en vertu de la présente loi;
b) celles qui sont les enfants d'une personne qui était inscrite ou avait le droit de l'être en vertu de l'alinéa 11(1)f), dans sa version antérieure au 17 avril 1985, ou en vertu de toute disposition antérieure de la présente loi portant sur le même sujet que celui de cet alinéa, et qui sont également les enfants d'une personne qui n'a pas le droit d'être inscrite.
7(2) Exception
(2) L'alinéa (1)a) ne s'applique pas à une personne de sexe féminin qui, avant qu'elle ne soit inscrite en vertu de l'alinéa 11(1)f), avait le droit d'être inscrite en vertu de toute autre disposition de la présente loi.
7(3) Idem
(3) L'alinéa (1)b) ne s'applique pas à l'enfant d'une personne de sexe féminin qui, avant qu'elle ne soit inscrite en vertu de l'alinéa 11(1)f), avait le droit d'être inscrite en vertu de toute autre disposition de la présente loi.
L.R. (1985), ch. I-5, art. 7; L.R. (1985), ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4.
[29] Section 14.1 deals with inquiries relating to the Indian Register or Band Lists. Section 14.2 authorizes protests related to inclusions or additions and omissions or deletions from the Indian Register and section 14.3 provides for appeals to provincial superior courts from the Registrar's decision dealing with a protest. Sections 14.1 to 14.3 read as follows:
14.1 The Registrar shall, on inquiry from any person who believes that he or any person he represents is entitled to have his name included in the Indian Register or a Band List maintained in the Department, indicate to the person making the inquiry whether or not that name is included therein.
R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4.
Protests
14.2(1) 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.
14.2(2) 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.
14.2(3) 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.
14.2(4) Onus of proof
(4) The onus of establishing the grounds of a protest under this section lies on the person making the protest.
14.2(5) 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.
14.2(6) 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.
14.2(7) Decision final
(7) Subject to section 14.3, the decision of the Registrar under subsection (5) is final and conclusive.
R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4.
14.3(1) 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).
14.3(2) 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.
14.3(3) 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.
14.3(4) 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. [emphasis mine]
14.3(5) 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) in the Province of Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, before the Trial Division of the Supreme Court;
(c.1) [Repealed, 1992, c. 51, s. 54]
(d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, before the Supreme Court; or
(e) in Nunavut, before the Nunavut Court of Justice.
R.S., 1985, c. 32 (1st Supp.), s. 4, c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10; 1990, c. 16, s. 14, c. 17, s. 25; 1992, c. 51, s. 54; 1998, c. 30, s. 14; 1999, c. 3, s. 69.
14.1 Le registraire, à la demande de toute personne qui croit qu'elle-même ou que la personne qu'elle représente a droit à l'inclusion de son nom dans le registre des Indiens ou une liste de bande tenue au ministère, indique sans délai à l'auteur de la demande si ce nom y est inclus ou non.
L.R. (1985), ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4.
Protestations
14.2(1) Protestations
14.2 (1) Une protestation peut être formulée, par avis 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.
14.2(2) 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.
14.2(3) 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.
14.2(4) Charge de la preuve
(4) La personne qui formule la protestation prévue au présent article a la charge d'en prouver le bien-fondé.
14.2(5) 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.
14.2(6) 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.
14.2(7) 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. (1985), ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4.
14.3(1) 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.
14.3(2) 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.
14.3(3) 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.
14.3(4) 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.
14.3(5) 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, le territoire du Yukon et les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, par la Cour suprême;
e) au Nunavut, par la Cour de justice.
L.R. (1985), ch. 32 (1er suppl.), art. 4, ch. 27 (2e suppl.), art. 10; 1990, ch. 16, art. 14, ch. 17, art. 25; 1992, ch. 51, art. 54; 1998, ch. 30, art. 14; 1999, ch. 3, art. 69.
[30] I touch briefly on sections 8 to 13 of the Act which concern Band Lists. Section 8 provides there shall be maintained in accordance with the Act, for each band, a Band List in which shall be entered the name of every person who is a member of that band with section 9 providing that, until such time as a band assumes control of its Band List, the Band List of that band shall be maintained in the department by the Registrar. The Registrar has the power to delete and add names to a Band List maintained by the department. Under section 11, membership rules are established for Band Lists maintained by the department.
(2) Certain other statutory provisions
[31] In order to appreciate the statutory context and arguments or positions taken by the parties in this reference, mention is made of the following provisions of the Indian Act prior to 1951 as well as connected legislation.
(a) The 1886 Indian Act
[32] In the 1886 Indian Act, R.S. 1866, c. 43, "Indian" was defined to mean:
(h) The expression "Indian" means
First. Any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band;
Secondly. Any child of such person;
Thirdly. Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person;
[33] In that same Act "non-treaty Indian" read:
(i) The expression "non-treaty Indian" means any person of Indian blood who is reputed to belong to an irregular band, or who follows the Indian mode of life, even if such person is only a temporary resident in Canada. [emphasis mine]
[34] Section 13 of that same Act, as amended by Chap. 22, 51 Victoria (assented to the 22nd of May 1888) with a marginal note reading "as to half-breeds in Manitoba and elsewhere" reads:
13. No half-breed in Manitoba who has shared in the distribution of half-breed lands shall be accounted an Indian; and no half-breed head of a family, except the widow of an Indian, or a half-breed who has already been admitted into a treaty, shall, unless under very special circumstances, which shall be determined by the Superintendent General or his agent, be accounted an Indian, or entitled to be admitted into any Indian treaty; and any half-breed who has been admitted into a treaty shall, on obtaining the consent in writing of the Indian Commissioner or in his absence the Associate Indian Commissioner, be allowed to withdraw therefrom on signifying in writing his desire so to do, -- which signification in writing shall be signed by him in the presence of two witnesses, who shall certify the same on oath before some person authorized by law to administer the same; and such withdrawal shall include the minor unmarried children of such half-breed. [emphasis mine]
D. THE REGISTRAR'S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DELETE
(1) The June 1, 1998 notice
[35] On June 1, 1998, the Registrar advised Sam Sinclair he could no longer be considered by her to be entitled to be registered as an Indian and it was her intention to delete his name from the Indian Registry subject to his supplying additional proof of entitlement. The Registrar informed Sam Sinclair she had discovered a problem on his mother's side and, in particular, with his maternal grandmother, Isabelle Courteoreille. She wrote:
At the time you were registered, it was thought that your mother, Agathe Sinclair née Courteoreille could be deemed to be entitled to registration under section 6(2) of the Indian Act through her mother, Isabelle Courteoreille née Cardinal. At that time, it was believed that the parents of Isabelle Courteoreille née Cardinal [John Cardinal and Cécile Labonne] did not take scrip and that Isabelle could be deemed to be entitled to registration because her brother, Casimir Cardinal, became a member of the Sucker Creek Band.
[36] However, the Registrar said she had new information concerning his family background. The Registrar said Sam Sinclair's maternal grandfather, Michel Courteoreille, received scrip and was allotted scrip on behalf of his minor children including his daughter (Sam Sinclair's mother), Agathe, in July 1899 after Treaty 8 was signed. The Registrar said Michel Courteoreille and his parents were not members of or in any way affiliated with any Indian band and as a result he (Michel Courteoreille) was not entitled to registration as an Indian.
[37] The Registrar pointed out that persons who took scrip and their descendants were not entitled to registration as Indians under the provisions of the Indian Act as they read prior to its 1985 amendment. She said the current Indian Act does not make specific provision for the restoration of status to such persons but was of the view "it is possible to consider the registration of persons who took scrip or the registration of the descendants of such persons if it can be established that the applicant is a direct descendant of Indians who did not take scrip". [emphasis mine]
[38] In her notice letter, the Registrar said this was not the case with Sam Sinclair's family on his maternal side. This is what she wrote to Sam Sinclair:
I have now established that Isabelle's parents did receive scrip, and as a result, I cannot deem Isabelle ever to have been entitled to registration as an Indian, even though her brother, Casimir Cardinal,became a member of the Sucker Creek Band (formerly a part of Kinnosayo's Band) and was listed as a member of that band until his death. At the time you were registered, it was assumed that Casimir was a member of the band because his father was a member or would have been entitled to membership in a band, and that Casimir was entitled to Indian status under section 2(h) of the Indian Act of 1886, which defined "Indian" as any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band; a child of such a person; and any woman who is or was lawfully married to such a person. However, it has now been established that the parents of Isabelle and Casimir (and Isabelle's husband) all received scrip and all stated on their scrip applications that they never received any annuity as Indians or in any way participated in grants to Indians. They did not indicate that they were ever associated with any Indian band. Consequently, there is no evidence that Isabelle's father was ever associated with a particular Indian band and therefore no indication that Casimir gained entitlement to Indian status or his band membership through his father.
It now appears that Casimir probably became a member of Kinnosayo's Band (and later, the Sucker Creek Band) under an exception to section 13 of the Indian Act of 1886 which stated that"... no half-breed head of a family except the widow of an Indian, or a half-breed who has already been admitted to a treaty, shall, unless under very special circumstances ... be accounted an Indian or entitled to be admitted into any Indian treaty...". There is no indication in our records what the special circumstances may have been in Casimir's case and no evidence whatsoever that the same circumstances might have applied in the case of his sister Isabelle.
Since I have now established that neither of your maternal grandparents are entitled to registration under the Indian Act, your mother, Agathe Sinclair née Courteoreille, is not entitled to registration as an Indian. There is no provision in the Indian Act for the registration of a person one of whose parents is entitled to registration under section 6(2) of the Act and whose other parent is not entitled to registration. As a result, you are not entitled to registration as an Indian in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act. [emphasis mine]
(2) The Registrar's further explanation
[39] On January 29, 1999, the Registrar wrote to Sam Sinclair's solicitor to clear up "a misunderstanding with respect to the reasons why I have determined that your client's maternal grandmother, Isabelle Courteoreille, cannot be deemed entitled to registration under the provisions of the Indian Act of 1985". The Registrar said there is some suggestion that "my decision is based on the assumption that Isabelle Courteoreille would have taken scrip along with her husband and children had she been alive when Treaty 8 was signed in 1899, and that based on this assumption, I concluded that Isabelle Courteoreille would not be entitled to Indian status. This is not the case."
[40] The Registrar then explained the basis of her June 1, 1998 letter to Mr. Sinclair. She wrote:
... I explained why Isabelle Cardinal [then] was deemed entitled to registration under subsection 6(1) of the Indian Act.... The basis of this decision was the belief that her parents had not applied for nor had been allotted half-breed scrip, hence giving rise to an assumption that they could have entered treaty and been considered members of Kinnosayo's (Sucker Creek) band as was their son, Casimir Cardinal. This assumption provided a basis to assume that any of Casimir's siblings who had not applied for and been allotted half-breed scrip would have met the definition of the term "Indian" as found in subsection 2(h) of the Indian Act [1886] . . ., as long as they had not lost their entitlement to band membership under any other section of the Indian Act (1886). For those that had lost their entitlement, especially through marriage to a non-Indian, their entitlement could be considered under the provisions which restored Indian status to those who lost it under certain specified circumstances contained in the Indian Act (1985). [emphasis mine]
[41] She then recited the fact Isabelle Courteoreille's mother and father applied for and were allotted scrip and a new fact she was identified as a Metis on her husband's scrip application submitted on behalf of he and his minor children.
[42] The Registrar reiterated when it was drawn to her attention that Isabelle's mother and father had applied for and had been allotted Metis scrip, she concluded they could not be considered "Indians" as defined by subsection 2(h) of the Indian Act (1886) as they "were ‘[Metis] heads of a family' and thus prohibited from entering treaty" citing section 13 of the 1886 Indian Act. The Registrar said that "[H]ence there was no longer a basis to conclude that Isabelle's parents could have entered treaty and become members of Kinnosayo's Band or that Isabelle (or her brother Casimir) Cardinal had any entitlement to enter treaty based on the entitlement of their parents to enter treaty".
[43] She explained further "because of the identification of Isabelle Courteoreille as a [Metis], she, as a [Metis] head of a family herself, as was her husband, would not have been eligible to be admitted into any treaty except if there had been any ‘special circumstances' which would bring her into treaty or membership in any Indian band. In my investigation into the matter, I have found no evidence of any such ‘special circumstances'."
[44] The Registrar continued by saying this:
One would have to surmise that her brother, Casimir Cardinal, entered treaty and membership in Kinnosayo's (Sucker Creek) Band under "special circumstances". It is not, however, clear what these circumstances may have been. It is possible that being identifi