Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Yukon

Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Yukon

The appeal is dismissed because the chambers judge correctly required the heavy Rule 18 standard and legitimately exercised discretion to refuse declaratory relief under established principles: there was no live lis between the parties, the declarations sought were hypothetical or premature, and the appellant failed to demonstrate manifestly that there was no defence; the same discretionary Solosky analysis justified refusal of the Rule 18A declarations concerning OIC 2004/203.

Citation
2007 YKCA 1
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in; Respondent (defendant): Government of Yukon
Court
Yukon Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court Declarations and Summary Judgment/summary Trial Orders / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders below refusing summary judgment and refusing declaratory relief affirmed
Legal Topics
Declaratory Relief, Ultra Vires, Statutory Interpretation, Park Establishment, Land Claims Implementation, Summary Judgment (rule 18), Summary Trial (rule 18 A), Fiduciary Duty
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Aboriginal Law Public Law Property/land Law Procedural Law Declaratory Relief Ultra Vires Statutory Interpretation +5 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in

Appellant (plaintiff)

Government of Yukon

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court Declarations and Summary Judgment/summary Trial Orders / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order-in-Council 2004/202 was ultra vires because mines and minerals became territorial lands under the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act as of April 1, 2003
  2. 2 Whether Order-in-Council 2004/203 is inconsistent or in conflict with the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in Final Agreement in respect of park purpose, permitting/management, exclusion of mines and minerals and exclusion of water beds and associated water rights
  3. 3 Whether the chambers judge applied an incorrect standard on the Rule 18 summary judgment application (beyond a doubt/manifestly clear)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the chambers judge correctly required the heavy Rule 18 standard and legitimately exercised discretion to refuse declaratory relief under established principles: there was no live lis between the parties, the declarations sought were hypothetical or premature, and the appellant failed to demonstrate manifestly that there was no defence; the same discretionary Solosky analysis justified refusal of the Rule 18A declarations concerning OIC 2004/203.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders below refusing summary judgment and refusing declaratory relief affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of McIntyre J dismissing Rule 18 summary judgment application for Declaration #1 affirmed