Simpson v. Canada

Simpson v. Canada

The Court struck the Amended Statement of Claim and dismissed the action against individual defendants with prejudice and dismissed the action against the remaining defendants without prejudice because the pleadings were fundamentally deficient, the plaintiffs lacked demonstrated standing and proper authority to proceed on behalf of the Band, there was insufficient nexus to invoke s.17 jurisdiction over individual defendants, and the prolonged failure to prosecute and comply with orders constituted an abuse of process warranting dismissal with costs.

Citation
2009 FC 1043
Parties
Plaintiffs Self‑identified Chiefs of the Mohawk Community of Kanesatake: Todd Simpson; Skonwakwénini Gabriel; Sylvia Bonspille Lorente; Annie Michala; Hilda Bonspille; Ruby Martin; Bellie Beauvais; Sandra Richards; Steven Bonspille; John Harding; Pearl Bonspille; Defendants Government: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development Canada; Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; Defendants Individual (duly Elected Chiefs): James Gabriel; Clarence Simon; Marie Chéné; Doreen Canatonquin
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Aboriginal/constitutional/tort/contract / Pre‑trial Motions to Strike and Dismiss for Delay, Abuse of Process and Defective Pleading
Outcome
Action struck and dismissed in part for abuse of process and deficient pleadings; individual defendants dismissed with prejudice and costs; remaining defendants dismissed without prejudice but refiling only with leave within 30 days.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Duty to Consult, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Standing, Jurisdiction Under Federal Courts Act S.17, Security for Costs, Striking Pleadings, Dismissal for Delay, S.35 Aboriginal Rights
Source Language
English
Aboriginal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Contract Law Abuse of Process Duty to Consult +7 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Todd Simpson; Skonwakwénini Gabriel; Sylvia Bonspille Lorente; Annie Michala; Hilda Bonspille; Ruby Martin; Bellie Beauvais; Sandra Richards; Steven Bonspille; John Harding; Pearl Bonspille

Plaintiffs Self‑identified Chiefs of the Mohawk Community of Kanesatake

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development Canada; Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

Defendants Government

James Gabriel; Clarence Simon; Marie Chéné; Doreen Canatonquin

Defendants Individual (duly Elected Chiefs)

Procedural Posture

Civil Aboriginal/constitutional/tort/contract / Pre‑trial Motions to Strike and Dismiss for Delay, Abuse of Process and Defective Pleading

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a tenable cause of action against the individual defendants and the Crown
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs have standing and proper authority to sue on behalf of the Band
  3. 3 Whether the Amended Statement of Claim is so deficient that it must be struck

Ratio Decidendi

The Court struck the Amended Statement of Claim and dismissed the action against individual defendants with prejudice and dismissed the action against the remaining defendants without prejudice because the pleadings were fundamentally deficient, the plaintiffs lacked demonstrated standing and proper authority to proceed on behalf of the Band, there was insufficient nexus to invoke s.17 jurisdiction over individual defendants, and the prolonged failure to prosecute and comply with orders constituted an abuse of process warranting dismissal with costs.

Court Disposition

Action struck and dismissed in part for abuse of process and deficient pleadings; individual defendants dismissed with prejudice and costs; remaining defendants dismissed without prejudice but refiling only with leave within 30 days.

Orders

  • The action against the individual Defendants is dismissed with prejudice and with costs to those Defendants.
  • The action against the remaining Defendants is dismissed with costs in their favour but without prejudice to one or more of the Plaintiffs filing a new action in respect of the same subject but only with leave of this Court and within 30 days of this Order.