Salt River First Nation #195 v. Martselos

Salt River First Nation #195 v. Martselos

Quo warranto was not available to challenge the September 10, 2008 BCR because the remedy targets entitlement to office not alleged abuses by officeholders and alternative remedies exist; disclosure is limited to a list of beneficiaries whose identities are relevant to conflict of interest issues; extensions, validation of service, and late filing of affidavits were granted on the facts and applicable tests.

Citation
2009 FC 25
Parties
Applicants: Chris Bird and Mike Beaver in their capacity as Councillors of the Salt River First Nation #195 (also known as Salt River Indian Band #759); Respondents: Chief Frieda Martselos and Salt River First Nation Council
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Motion for Procedural Orders (written Motion)
Outcome
Motion partially granted and partially dismissed
Legal Topics
Quo Warranto, Judicial Review, Disclosure Under Federal Courts Rules (rule 317/318), Extension of Time (s.18.1(2) Federal Courts Act), Service of Process (rule 304), Late Filing of Affidavits (rule 306), Ratification, Conflict of Interest
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Indigenous / First Nations Governance Civil Procedure Conflict of Interest Law Quo Warranto Judicial Review Disclosure Under Federal Courts Rules (rule 317/318) Extension of Time (s.18.1(2) Federal Courts Act) +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Bird and Mike Beaver in their capacity as Councillors of the Salt River First Nation #195 (also known as Salt River Indian Band #759)

Applicants

Chief Frieda Martselos and Salt River First Nation Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Motion for Procedural Orders (written Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether quo warranto is a proper remedy to challenge Council actions
  2. 2 Scope of disclosure under Rules 317/318 and whether beneficiaries' identities must be produced
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants satisfied the test for extension of time under s.18.1(2) and Hennelly

Ratio Decidendi

Quo warranto was not available to challenge the September 10, 2008 BCR because the remedy targets entitlement to office not alleged abuses by officeholders and alternative remedies exist; disclosure is limited to a list of beneficiaries whose identities are relevant to conflict of interest issues; extensions, validation of service, and late filing of affidavits were granted on the facts and applicable tests.

Court Disposition

Motion partially granted and partially dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents to provide, within ten days of the Order, a list of persons who received compensation payments under the compensation scheme approved at the Special Membership Meeting held on September 9, 2008 and as subsequently approved by BCR on September 10, 2008
  • No other records requested by the Applicants are required to be provided by the Respondents