Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia

Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia

The chambers judge did not err: the Statement of Claim sought a broad declaration of aboriginal fishing rights without alleging any present or threatened infringement or live controversy; declaratory relief should not be granted for abstract historical claims lacking a real dispute, particularly where defining...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCCA 539
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: The Council of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia; Defendant/respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (declaratory Relief Concerning Aboriginal Rights) / Appeal From Chambers Order Striking the Writ and Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 35, Declaratory Judgment, Duty to Consult, Standing, Infringement, Sparrow Analysis, Justiciability
Source Language
english
Aboriginal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Section 35 Declaratory Judgment Duty to Consult Standing +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Council of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation

Plaintiff/appellant

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

Defendant/respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (declaratory Relief Concerning Aboriginal Rights) / Appeal From Chambers Order Striking the Writ and Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court should grant a broad declaratory judgment recognizing alleged aboriginal fishing rights in the absence of any pleaded present or threatened infringement
  2. 2 Whether the Chambers judge erred in striking the Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the claim (addressed but not dispositive on appeal)

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge did not err: the Statement of Claim sought a broad declaration of aboriginal fishing rights without alleging any present or threatened infringement or live controversy; declaratory relief should not be granted for abstract historical claims lacking a real dispute, particularly where defining aboriginal rights requires consideration of limits and factual context, so the order striking the pleadings was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Lysyk J. striking out the Writ and Amended Statement of Claim upheld
  • Leave was previously granted to the plaintiff to file a further amended Statement of Claim; time for amendment had been extended by consent pending appeal