Case information

Judgments and orders – Summary judgments – In 1990, Sturgeon Lake Indian Band signed an agreement settling its Treaty Land Entitlement – In 1997, it filed a lawsuit claiming additional land as promised in Treaty No. 8 – Canada and Alberta sought to strike or summarily dismiss significant portions of the Sturgeon Lake Indian Band’s statement of claim – the courts below allowed the applications – Whether it is appropriate to determine the complex interplay between collective and individual Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations people on a summary basis – Whether, in the context of the fiduciary and constitutional obligations of the Crown, when the Government and First Nations are negotiating an agreement involving Treaty and Aboriginal rights, as an adjunct to the duty to consult, the Crown owes a duty of uberrimae fidei.

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 Sturgeon Lake Indian Band is a signatory to Treaty No. 8. The size of the band’s reserve was not properly calculated when it was surveyed in 1908. In 1985, Canada accepted to negotiate the band’s claim for further land entitlement. In 1987, the band issued a statement of claim against Alberta alleging that Alberta was in possession of lands that were subject to its land claims. In 1990, Canada and the band signed a settlement agreement and there was a companion Canada-Alberta agreement. The settlement was then reflected in a consent order ending the 1987 action. The agreements contained release and indemnity provisions in favour of Canada and Alberta.

In 1997, the band filed a lawsuit claiming additional land as promised in Treaty No. 8. Canada and Alberta brought applications to strike or summarily dismiss significant portions of the claim, alleging that the action was an attempt to re-litigate settled matters and that the limitation period had expired with respect to many of the claims. The case management judge struck and summarily dismissed many parts of the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.