Thomas v. Peace Hills Trust Co.

Thomas v. Peace Hills Trust Co.

Federal Court lacked jurisdiction: petitioners' causes of action arise under provincial trust, fiduciary and tort law concerning property and trustees resident in Saskatchewan; there is no statutory grant nor body of federal law nourishing Federal Court jurisdiction under the ITO test; the attornment clause is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCT 443
Parties
Plaintiffs (respondents): Harvey Thomas; Wallace Moccasin; Connie Gopher; Gilbert Night; Charles Martell; Cary Gopher; Roy Helman (Saulteaux Land Entitlement Trustees); Defendant (applicant): Peace Hills Trust Company; Defendant (applicant): Kelly Bitternose
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil: Trust, Contract and Tort Claim Arising From Alleged Diversion of Treaty Land Entitlement Funds / Jurisdiction Motion Motion to Strike/dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction (pre Trial)
Outcome
Motion granted; Statement of Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Attornment Clause, Federal Common Law, ITO Three Part Test, Interpretation of S.17 Federal Court Act, Statutory Ratification, Jurisdiction by Consent, Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act
Source Language
english
Federal Court Jurisdiction Trusts Contract Law Fiduciary Duty Tort Negligence Indigenous/treaty Law Attornment Clause Federal Common Law +5 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harvey Thomas; Wallace Moccasin; Connie Gopher; Gilbert Night; Charles Martell; Cary Gopher; Roy Helman (Saulteaux Land Entitlement Trustees)

Plaintiffs (respondents)

Peace Hills Trust Company

Defendant (applicant)

Kelly Bitternose

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Civil: Trust, Contract and Tort Claim Arising From Alleged Diversion of Treaty Land Entitlement Funds / Jurisdiction Motion Motion to Strike/dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear an action between private parties alleging diversion of trust funds arising from agreements connected to treaty land entitlement
  2. 2 Whether the attornment clause in the Framework/Band Agreements and related Trust Agreement confers Federal Court jurisdiction as against non-signatories (bank and employee)
  3. 3 Whether the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act or federal common law nourishes a statutory grant of Federal Court jurisdiction in this dispute

Ratio Decidendi

Federal Court lacked jurisdiction: petitioners' causes of action arise under provincial trust, fiduciary and tort law concerning property and trustees resident in Saskatchewan; there is no statutory grant nor body of federal law nourishing Federal Court jurisdiction under the ITO test; the attornment clause is contractual and cannot extend Federal Court jurisdiction to non-parties (the bank and employee); s.17 of the Federal Court Act does not permit parties to confer jurisdiction beyond that granted by Parliament but operates to make Federal Court jurisdiction exclusive where it already exists between Crown and contracting party. Therefore the Statement of Claim must be dismissed for...

Court Disposition

Motion granted; Statement of Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Statement of Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • Each party to bear their own costs