Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Aboriginal law - Indian bands - Indian reserves - Fiduciary duty - Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Civil procedure - Class actions - Standing - Limitation of actions - Torts - Intentional torts - Crown law - Crown liability - Must a defendant, in seeking summary dismissal of a representative action, prove that all members of the proposed class lack standing to bring the action and that the action is statute-barred against each member of the proposed class? - Who has standing to bring a modern day action related to collective reserve land interests when the collective entity with the vested interest – an historical Indian band – no longer exists? - Is the Crown immune from liability for intentional torts, including allegations of wilfulness, malice, bad faith, equitable fraud, reckless or fraudulent misrepresentations, coercion and duress, alleged to have been committed over 100 years ago, pre-dating the Crown Liability Act?

The Respondents are the alleged descendants of former members of the Papaschase Indian Band and bring an action in damages on their own behalf and that of all the descendants against the federal Crown. They allege that their reserve was improperly surrendered in 1889, and bring claims of breach of fiduciary duty, malice, bad faith, and fraud. Allegations of wrongdoing also included the size of reserve given to the Band, insufficient provision of assistance under the treaty, the sale of Métis scrip to Band members, the sale at undervalue of the lands, the joining with the Enoch Band, and the mismanagement of sale proceeds. The Respondents brought an application to have their proceeding declared a representative action. The Crown brought an application to strike all or portions of the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action, and an application for summary dismissal of the suit, arguing that: I) the surrender and sale of the reserve were properly conducted; ii) the Respondents have no cause of action and no standing to sue, since no successors in title exist; and iii) all possible limitations periods have long expired and the claims are statute-barred.

The chambers judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta dismissed the Respondents’ application for an order declaring the action a representative action. He also granted the Appellant’s application to summarily dismiss most of the Respondents’ claims, except for the claim for an accounting of proceeds of sale of the surrendered reserve, which was stayed pending identification of a person with standing to advance it. The Court of Appeal for Alberta allowed the appeal and held that none of the claims were summarily dismissed. Côté J.A., dissenting in part, would have allowed summary dismissal of the claims of malice, fraud and bad faith against the Crown.