Tait v. Johnson

Tait v. Johnson

The Court held that the dismissal of the Previous Appeal Board and the appointment and process surrounding the New Appeal Board were procedurally unfair and unreasonable; because the New Appeal Board was not properly constituted and its appointment was invalid, it lacked jurisdiction to decide the petition and the decision removing Mayor Garry Reece was quashed, leaving him as Mayor.

Citation
2014 FC 1102
Parties
Applicants (councillors and Mayor): Andrew Tait; Lawrence Sankey; Barb Henry; Stan Dennis; Victor Kelly; Robbie Hughes; Garry Reece; Respondents (councillors and Complaints and Appeal Board): Helen Johnson; Carl Sampson Jr.; Russel Mather; Ted White; Geraldine Alexcee; Chris Sankey; John Helin; Rudy Kelly; Allan Helin Sr.; Sharon Hurdell; Sharon Haldane; Cheryl Tait
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment (decision)
Outcome
Application granted in part: dismissal of the Previous Appeal Board declared invalid; appointment of the New Appeal Board invalid; removal of Mayor Garry Reece quashed; appointment of John Helin declared invalid; remainder of application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Tribunal Composition and Jurisdiction, Removal From Office, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Aboriginal Law Electoral Law Tribunal Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Bias Tribunal Composition and Jurisdiction +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Tait; Lawrence Sankey; Barb Henry; Stan Dennis; Victor Kelly; Robbie Hughes; Garry Reece

Applicants (councillors and Mayor)

Helen Johnson; Carl Sampson Jr.; Russel Mather; Ted White; Geraldine Alexcee; Chris Sankey; John Helin; Rudy Kelly; Allan Helin Sr.; Sharon Hurdell; Sharon Haldane; Cheryl Tait

Respondents (councillors and Complaints and Appeal Board)

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the newly appointed Complaints and Appeal Board was properly constituted and had jurisdiction to accept the petition
  2. 2 Whether the New Appeal Board was biased or breached the duty of procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether the New Appeal Board’s decision to remove the Mayor was reasonable and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the dismissal of the Previous Appeal Board and the appointment and process surrounding the New Appeal Board were procedurally unfair and unreasonable; because the New Appeal Board was not properly constituted and its appointment was invalid, it lacked jurisdiction to decide the petition and the decision removing Mayor Garry Reece was quashed, leaving him as Mayor.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: dismissal of the Previous Appeal Board declared invalid; appointment of the New Appeal Board invalid; removal of Mayor Garry Reece quashed; appointment of John Helin declared invalid; remainder of application dismissed.

Orders

  • The dismissal of the Previous Appeal Board is unreasonable and contrary to the Election Regulations and invalid
  • The process for the appointment of the New Appeal Board was unfair and unreasonable; the New Appeal Board was not properly constituted and did not have jurisdiction to accept and decide the Band Council’s petition