Martin v. Canada (Attorney General)

Martin v. Canada (Attorney General)

Because a declaration that the defendants owed a duty to consult to the plaintiffs would directly curtail the applicants' legal right to represent status Indians and would materially affect legal rights under existing agreements, the applicants' presence was necessary for the issues to be effectually and completely determined; accordingly the court ordered joinder of the applicants as defendants under Rule 104(1)(b) and imposed conditions to prevent prejudice and delay (single voice, 30 days to file Defence, litigation plan within 60 days) and designated the case as a specially managed proceeding under Rule 385.

Citation
2002 FCT 1117
Parties
Plaintiffs / Representative Plaintiffs: Tim Martin et al. (on behalf of Mi'kmaq A.T.R.A. passport holders); Defendants: The Attorney General of Canada; The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs; The Interlocutor for Metis and Non‑Status Indians; Applicants / Proposed Defendants (joined): Acadia, Afton, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Glooscap, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook and Whycocomagh (Waycobah) Indian Bands
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Representative Proceeding Concerning Duty to Consult and Aboriginal Fishing Agreements / Motion to Add Parties; Joinder Granted; Case Designated as Specially Managed Proceeding (pre Trial Stage)
Outcome
Applicants joined as defendants under Rule 104(1)(b) subject to conditions; case continued as a specially managed proceeding under Rule 385
Legal Topics
Duty to Consult, Joinder Under Court Rules, Intervention, Representative Proceedings, Judicial Review of Agreements, Court Management / Specially Managed Proceeding
Source Language
English
Aboriginal Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Fisheries Law Duty to Consult Joinder Under Court Rules Intervention Representative Proceedings +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tim Martin et al. (on behalf of Mi'kmaq A.T.R.A. passport holders)

Plaintiffs / Representative Plaintiffs

The Attorney General of Canada; The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs; The Interlocutor for Metis and Non‑Status Indians

Defendants

Acadia, Afton, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Glooscap, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook and Whycocomagh (Waycobah) Indian Bands

Applicants / Proposed Defendants (joined)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Representative Proceeding Concerning Duty to Consult and Aboriginal Fishing Agreements / Motion to Add Parties; Joinder Granted; Case Designated as Specially Managed Proceeding (pre Trial Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the thirteen Mi'kmaq Bands should be added as defendants under Rule 104(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be allowed to intervene under Rule 109 and the scope of any such intervention
  3. 3 Admissibility of portions of the affidavit of Daniel Christmas

Ratio Decidendi

Because a declaration that the defendants owed a duty to consult to the plaintiffs would directly curtail the applicants' legal right to represent status Indians and would materially affect legal rights under existing agreements, the applicants' presence was necessary for the issues to be effectually and completely determined; accordingly the court ordered joinder of the applicants as defendants under Rule 104(1)(b) and imposed conditions to prevent prejudice and delay (single voice, 30 days to file Defence, litigation plan within 60 days) and designated the case as a specially managed proceeding under Rule 385.

Court Disposition

Applicants joined as defendants under Rule 104(1)(b) subject to conditions; case continued as a specially managed proceeding under Rule 385

Orders

  • Applicants to be added to the style of cause as defendants
  • Applicants have 30 days to file a Defence