Chicot v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Chicot v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-11-24
Neutral citation
2006 FC 1425
File numbers
T-1996-05
Decision Content
Date: 20061124
Docket: T-1996-05
Citation: 2006 FC 1425
BETWEEN:
LLOYD CHICOT suing on his own behalf and
on behalf of all Members of the Ka’a’Gee Tu First Nation
and the KA’A’GEE TU FIRST NATION
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF INDIAN AND
NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA and
PARAMOUNT RESOURCES LTD.
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
[1] The Applicants appeal a decision of Prothonotary Lafrenière denying their motion that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board produce all the records in its possession:
(a) pertaining to the appointment of Mr. Burlingame to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, including the original list of nominees provided by the Board to the Minister, all records evidencing communication between the Minister, the Board and Mr. Burlingame regarding the list of nominees and/or his appointment, and all internal records of the Board on the subject of the appointment of the Chair of the Board (sometimes called the “Appointment Records”); and
(b) of (sic) communications between Mr. Burlingame and the Minister and his Department, INAC, since the date of Mr. Burlingame’s appointment as Chair of the Board (sometimes referred to as “Interest Records”).
[2] On this appeal, the Applicants did not request an order for production of those records described in item (b).
[3] The original motion before Prothonotary Lafrenière was dealt with in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. Prior to the motion for these records, there had been an amendment of the Notice of Application. The amendment and the circumstances surrounding it appear to be the source of misunderstanding as to the Applicants’ grounds for judicial review and the relevance of the requested documents.
[4] This misunderstanding is evident from the comment by Prothonotary Lafrenière that the Applicants had withdrawn their allegation that the Minister acted illegally and ultra vires his powers in appointing Todd Burlingame as Chair of the Board. From this, Prothonotary Lafrenière drew the conclusion that these Appointment Records were no longer relevant and that the Applicants were engaged in a collateral attack on the Minister’s decision to appoint Mr. Burlingame.
[5] Both the Board and the Minister (Paramount Resources Ltd. did not appear) confirmed at the hearing of this appeal that they too understood that the Applicants had withdrawn their challenge to the appointment.
[6] The original Notice of Application had named Mr. Burlingame as a party and had sought a declaration that the Minister had acted illegally and ultra vires his powers in appointing Mr. Burlingame.
[7] However, before me the Applicants confirmed that the appointment of Mr. Burlingame is a live issue and while there was a change to the parties (Mr. Burlingame having been deleted) and to the relief requested, the grounds for relief, particularly paragraph 54, raises the illegality of the decision in which Mr. Burlingame participated due to the illegality of his appointment.
[8] Therefore, both the Respondent and Prothonotary Lafrenière were proceeding on a misapprehension of the matters in issue. This justifies a review of Prothonotary Lafrenière’s decision. (Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. 2003 FCA 488, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1925 (QL))
[9] As to the issue of relevance, the Applicants were not in a position to challenge the Minister’s appointment when it was made because they were not involved in any process before the Board or otherwise affected by the appointment. A judicial review of the Minister’s decision could not have been raised sooner. The attack now is that Mr. Burlingame is disqualified to sit on the Board’s proceeding under judicial review because of flaws in his appointment process. As that plea has not been struck, those records which were requested relating to Mr. Burlingame’s appointment become relevant to the litigation.
[10] Therefore, this appeal will be allowed without costs and the Appointment Records will be ordered produced on an expedited basis to accommodate the schedule for the judicial review hearing.
“Michael L. Phelan”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1996-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: LLOYD CHICOT suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all Members of the Ka’a’Gee Tu First Nation and the KA’A’GEE TU FIRST NATION
and
MINISTER OF INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA and PARAMOUNT RESOURCES LTD.
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: November 20, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: Phelan J.
DATED: November 24, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Timothy Howard
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Mr. Ronald Kruhlak
FOR THE RESPONDENT,
THE MACKENZIE VALLEY
LAND AND WATER BOARD
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MANDELL PINDER
Barristers & Solicitors
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE APPLICANTS
McLENNAN ROSS LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Edmonton, Alberta
FOR THE RESPONDENT,
THE MACKENZIE VALLEY
LAND AND WATER BOARD