Case information

Charter — Contracts — Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (“IRSSA”) — Interpretation — Application — Article 12 — Membership on Schedule “F” of IRSSA — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in declining jurisdiction to consider the Charter arguments within the context of Article 12 — Whether the supervising judge erred in law by failing to consider the sui generis nature of the IRSSA and the surrounding circumstances of its inception and, in particular, of Article 12.01 — Whether the lower courts erred in law in finding that the Home did not meet the first criteria set out in Article 12.01(2) — Whether the lower courts erred in mixed fact and law in finding that the Home did not meet the second criteria of Article 12.01(2) based on the factors set out in Article 12.01(3) — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in rejecting the fresh evidence as not having an impact on the outcome of the supervising judge’s decision based on the fourth test set out in R. v. Palmer.

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.

The Lac La Ronge Indian Band applied to have the Timber Bay Children’s Home (which went by several names and will be referred to as the “Home”) included in Schedule “F” of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (“IRSSA”). The Home was a residence for children who attended school elsewhere. The Government of Canada provided funding and some other services for Indian children who resided at the Home. The IRSSA defines “Indian Residential Schools” as schools listed on Schedules “E” or “F”, or found to meet the criteria set out in Article 12 of the IRSSA. They require that the child “was placed in a residence away from the family home by or under the authority of Canada for the purposes of education” and that “Canada was jointly or solely responsible for the operation of the residence and care of the children resident there”. The Band applied to have the Home included on Schedule “F”.

The supervising judge dismissed the application to have the Home included on Schedule “F”, finding that the children were not placed in the Home by or under the authority of Canada for the purposes of education, and that Canada did not have joint or sole responsibility for the operation of the residence and care of the children resident there. The Court of Appeal held that the fresh evidence proposed by the Band was not admissible. However, having considered it, it found no basis for appellate review and dismissed the appeal.