Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

The court declines to grant judicial recourse because none of the RFDs demonstrated the very exceptional circumstances or patent disregard of the IAP Model required by Schachter; deference to IAP adjudicators on process and credibility is required; the new disclosures and alleged procedural errors did not materially affect outcomes and do not justify reopening or court intervention.

Citation
2017 BCSC 946
Parties
Plaintiffs: Larry Philip Fontaine et al; Defendants: The Attorney General of Canada et al
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Class Proceedings (irssa/iap) / Request for Directions (judicial Recourse) – Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Relief denied; RFDs dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Recourse, IAP Review, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review, Credibility Findings, Scope of Review, Finality, Adjudicator Discretion
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Contract Law Class Actions Indigenous Law Civil Procedure Evidence Judicial Recourse IAP Review +6 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larry Philip Fontaine et al

Plaintiffs

The Attorney General of Canada et al

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Class Proceedings (irssa/iap) / Request for Directions (judicial Recourse) – Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Supervising Court has jurisdiction for judicial recourse from IAP Re-Review decisions
  2. 2 Whether an IAP decision reflects a patent disregard of the IAP Model such that courts may intervene
  3. 3 Whether post-resolution or progressive disclosure justifies reopening or review of an IAP decision

Ratio Decidendi

The court declines to grant judicial recourse because none of the RFDs demonstrated the very exceptional circumstances or patent disregard of the IAP Model required by Schachter; deference to IAP adjudicators on process and credibility is required; the new disclosures and alleged procedural errors did not materially affect outcomes and do not justify reopening or court intervention.

Court Disposition

Relief denied; RFDs dismissed

Orders

  • Relief sought in RFDs T-00178, S-22283 and L-15716 is denied.