Verville v. Canada (Attorney General)

2026 BCSC 236 Verville v. Canada (Attorney General) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Verville v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 BCSC 236 Date: 20260211 Docket: S23635 Registry: Nelson Between: Daryl Verville and Douglas Verville Plaintiffs And His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Alberta and the Grey Nuns of Montreal Defendants Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Lyster Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Applicant, His Majesty the King in Right of Canada: S.C. Hanson Appearing in person: Daryl Verville Place and Date of Hearing: Nelson, B.C. November 3, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Nelson, B.C. February 11, 2026 Introduction.. 2 The IRSSA.. 4 Discussion.. 5 Decision.. 8 Introduction [1] Daryl Verville filed this action on behalf of himself and his father, Douglas Verville. Mr. Verville Sr. was born in 1924, and was forced to attend the Youville Residential School in Alberta from 1929, at the age of four, until graduation. Mr. Verville Sr. died in 1997. [2] Mr. Verville Jr. is a member of the Kahnawꞻ:ke Mohawk Nation. He is an intergenerational survivor of the Canadian Residential School system. [3] In the notice of civil claim, Mr. Verville Jr. alleges that his father was subjected to severe emotional, physical and sexual abuse during his time in the Residential School system. [4] Mr. Verville Jr. alleges that as a result of intergenerational trauma he developed complex psychological conditions, which affected his ability to maintain stable employment, relationships and emotional well-being. He received long-term disability benefits from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, and now receives an old age pension. He alleges that his career as a concert pianist and university professor was severely disrupted by the psychological effects of his father's abuse and resulting family dysfunction. [5] The notice of civil claim alleges negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, the intentional infliction of emotional harm and systemic abuse on the part of agents of the Crown, provincial authorities and religious institutions. Substantial general and special damages are sought on behalf of both Mr. Verville Sr. and Mr. Verville Jr. [6] The Federal Crown applies pursuant to Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 to strike the claim against it, without leave to amend. It does not seek costs. The Crown's application is based on the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (the "IRSSA"). It submits that the IRSSA binds all Residential School survivors and their families, and that the IRSSA bars the claim from proceeding. [7] In response, Mr. Verville Jr. submits that his father died in 1997, before the IRSSA was entered into, and his father therefore did not receive notice and he could not have been a part of the IRSSA. Mr. Verville Jr. says that his father never wanted to discuss his childhood experiences, and he did not know that his father had attended Residential School until after he died. He submits that he and his father were never notified, and stand outside of the Class, and that the IRSSA does not bind them. He submits that his claim arises from distinct, post-IRSSA harm and Canada's ongoing failure to address intergenerational trauma. As a result, he submits that it is not plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed and it should, therefore, not be struck. [8] As such, the sole issue before the court is whether the Vervilles' claim against Canada is barred by the IRSSA and, therefore, discloses no reasonable claim. If so, the claim must be struck. [9] This decision therefore does not address the harms suffered by Mr. Verville Sr. in the Residential School system, nor the consequential intergenerational effects on Mr. Verville Jr. Those harms are not open to debate. As stated by Mr. Justice Manson in Brandon v. Canada, 2025 FC 443 (CanLII) at para. 6, a decision addressing a similar application to strike an action brought by the child of Residential School survivors: [6] The devastating harms of residential schools - both direct and intergenerational - on survivors, their families, and all Indigenous peoples are undeniable. As the Supreme Court explained in Canada (Attorney General) v Fontaine, 2017 SCC 47 at paragraph 1: From the 1860s to the 1990s, more than 150,000 First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children were required to attend Indian Residential Schools operated by religious organizations and funded by the Government of Canada. As Canada has acknowledged, this system was intended to "remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and culture" ("Statement of Apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools" of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper on behalf of Canada, June 11, 2008 (online)). Thousands of these children were abused physically, emotionally, and sexually while at residential schools. [10] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the Vervilles' claim is barred by the IRSSA. I, therefore, strike the claim as against Canada, without leave to amend. The IRSSA [11] The IRSSA was described in general terms as follows by Manson J. in Brandon at paras. 7-8: [7] In 2006, Canada entered into the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement ("IRSSA"). The IRSSA made individual compensation available to all persons who resided at Residential Schools through the Common Experience Payment ("CEP"). The IRSSA also created the Independent Assessment Process, which provided additional compensation for those that suffered physical and sexual abuse. [8] The IRSSA also included three initiatives designed to address the broader historical and future concerns of the IRSSA class members, their families, and their communities at large (Baxter v Canada (Attorney General), 83 OR (3d) 481, 2006 CanLll 41673 (ONSC) [Baxter] at para 14). The IRSSA created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, provided an endowment to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation to support the healing needs of Indigenous people affected by the legacy of Indian Residential Schools, including intergenerational impacts, and gave an additional $20 million for commemorative projects. [12] According to its terms, IRSSA binds all "Class Members", who are defined as follows in Article 1(f): 1. Each and every person a) Who, at anytime prior to December 31, 1997, resided at an Indian Residential School in Canada; or b) Who is a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling or spouse of a person who, at anytime prior to December 31, 1997, resided at an Indian Residential School in Canada. [13] The IRSSA has been approved and incorporated by reference into the orders of courts across Canada, including the British Columbia Supreme Court in Quatell v. Attorney General of Canada, 2006 BCSC 1840. [14] The IRSSA includes a comprehensive release which binds all Class Members, regardless of whether they or their parents participated in the IRSSA or not. Discussion [15] This is an application to strike brought pursuant to Rule 9-5(1). Rule 9-5(1) states: Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters (1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that (a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be, (b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs. [16] The primary ground relied upon by the Crown is Rule 9-5(1)(a). It authorizes the court to strike a claim, with or without leave to amend, if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. A pleading will only be struck out if it is plain and obvious that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5 at para. 65. The court must consider only the pleadings, and not evidence, when considering an application to strike under Rule 9-5(1)(a). [17] The case most directly analogous to the application before the court is Brandon. In that case, the plaintiff was the child of two Residential School survivors. He suffered severe disabilities as a result of physical abuse by his father, and was placed in care at the age of 18 months. The statement of claim filed by Mr. Brandon proposed a class proceeding on behalf of children of Residential School survivors alive between February 28, 2022 and the date of certification. [18] At para. 21 of Brandon, the Court identified the determinative issue before it as being whether the claim was barred by the IRSSA release. In order to answer this question, the Court was required to determine if the proposed class members were bound by the IRSSA. The plaintiff argued they were not, on the basis that the IRSSA does not bind class members who were infants and minors at the time of its execution because they received no or negligible benefit from the IRSSA. The plaintiff also argued that no proposed class members were bound by the IRSSA because they received no notice that they were so bound. [19] The court in Brandon rejected these arguments. At para. 33, the Court held that the proposed class members were expressly included in the definition of Class Member in the IRSSA. The Court held that the "IRSSA explicitly covered all claims and bound the children of Residential School Survivors, regardless of the age of the child." [20] At para. 35, the Court held that the argument that the IRSSA cannot bind infants and minors because they received no or only negligible benefit from the IRSSA also failed because of the nine court orders approving the settlement. In this connection, the Court referred to the decision of the Ontario Supreme Court in Baxter v Canada (Attorney General), 83 OR (3d) 481, 2006 CanLII 41673 (ONSC). In Baxter, at paras. 82-84, the court decided it was permissible to exclude the estates of Residential School survivors who died prior to May 30, 2005 from making claims, while still binding those estates. Baxter was the decision of Winkler, R.S.J., as he then was, approving the IRSSA in Ontario. Baxter was referred to and relied upon by Chief Justice Brenner in Quatell, the British Columbia case approving the IRSSA. [21] Applying Baxter, the Court in Brandon held at para. 36 that even if the proposed class members in Brandon did not receive a direct benefit from the IRSSA, that did not negate the validity and enforceability of the IRSSA. [22] Dealing with the question of notice, the Court in Brandon held at para. 37 that adequate notice was given to all Class Members. Even if Mr. Brandon, who was a minor at the operative time, did not receive actual notice, "the lack of actual notice to any particular class member does not prevent the class from being bound where sufficient steps have been undertaken to provide adequate notice to the class". The Court held that, given the court approval orders, and the fact the notice plan had been carried out ten years ago, the court "cannot and should not reopen and revisit whether that notice was adequate to individual class members". [23] Counsel for Canada advised at the hearing of this application that Brandon is under appeal. So far as I have been able to determine that appeal has not yet been heard. Accepting that Brandon is not binding on this court, I find its reasoning persuasive. [24] To similar effect with respect to the importance of respecting and enforcing comprehensive settlement agreements is the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Goodswimmer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ABCA 365. That decision addressed an action brought by the appellant, Sturgeon Lake Indian Band. The defendants, Canada and Alberta, responded that the claims had been previously settled in the Treaty Land Entitlement Settlement Agreement. At paras. 48-49, the Court held that: [48] Important objectives of any settlement, and particularly any settlement aimed at reconciliation with respect to outstanding aboriginal claims, are certainty and finality [49] Once claims are settled, both parties should be expected to abide by the settlement Uncertainty and unpredictability created by challenges to settlements can only lead to more disagreements, and more litigation, which will undermine the ultimate objective of reconciliation. [25] Goodswimmer involved a nation-to-nation settlement, not an individual claim against the Crown. Despite that important distinction, the underlying rationale has broader application: finality and certainty promote reconciliation. The court in Brandon relied upon Goodswimmer at para. 38, where it stated: [38] To reiterate my comments above, the intergenerational harms caused by Residential Schools are undeniable. The hardship that this Plaintiff, and no doubt many like him, have endured is horrific and profoundly distressing. However, this Court must respect the overarching objectives of certainty and finality that perfuse any settlement, and particularly those relating to reconciliation. The IRSSA was the product of a desire to provide a fair, comprehensive and lasting resolution of the legacy of Indian Residential Schools (IRSSA, Preamble, B). Seeking ambiguities in settlement agreements years after approval works to create uncertainty and unpredictability in settlement agreements and disincentivizes settlement (Goodswimmer v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ABCA 365 [Goodswimmer] at paras. 48-49). [26] Those comments apply directly to the case before this court. Mr. Verville Sr. suffered horrific abuse while being forced to attend Residential School. I have no doubt that Mr. Verville Jr. has suffered intergenerational trauma as a result of the abuse his father suffered that has had a profound impact on his life. Nonetheless, both Vervilles are members of the Class and are bound by the terms of the IRSSA. This claim cannot succeed against Canada. Decision [27] Applying Baxter and Brandon, I have concluded that both Mr. Verville Sr. and Mr. Verville Jr. are bound by the IRSSA. They are both defined members of the Class, and it is plain and obvious that their claim cannot succeed. There is no way in which the claim could be amended to disclose a cause of action with a reasonable prospect of success against Canda. I, therefore, strike the claim as against Canada without leave to amend. [28] Canada did not seek its costs, and no costs will be ordered. "L.M. Lyster J." LYSTER J.