Pilot v. McKenzie

Pilot v. McKenzie

Motion denied because the court could not find undue delay on balance of probabilities: the delay (approximately one year and eight months) was not excessive or inexcusable, there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or serious prejudice to respondents, and dismissal under s.168 FCR was not warranted as continuation on the merits remained possible; abuse of process was noted but was not the statutory basis for dismissal under s.167/168 at this stage.

Citation
2021 FC 396
Parties
Applicants: Normand Pilot and Rolland Thirnish; Respondents: Mike McKenzie; Normand Ambroise; Antoine Grégoire; Kenny Régis; Dave Vollant; Zacharie Vollant; Intervener: Innu Takuaiikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam; Third Party: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (and Quo Warranto Challenge to Election) / Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Courts Rules S.167 and S.168
Outcome
Motion dismissed; without costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Dismissal for Delay, Abuse of Process, Election Contest, Quo Warranto, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Aboriginal Law Electoral Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Dismissal for Delay Abuse of Process Election Contest +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Normand Pilot and Rolland Thirnish

Applicants

Mike McKenzie; Normand Ambroise; Antoine Grégoire; Kenny Régis; Dave Vollant; Zacharie Vollant

Respondents

Innu Takuaiikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam

Intervener

Attorney General of Canada

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review (and Quo Warranto Challenge to Election) / Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Courts Rules S.167 and S.168

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is unjustifiably delayed under s.167 FCR
  2. 2 Whether continuation of the proceeding is impossible under s.168 FCR
  3. 3 Whether the applicants’ conduct amounts to abuse of process warranting dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Motion denied because the court could not find undue delay on balance of probabilities: the delay (approximately one year and eight months) was not excessive or inexcusable, there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or serious prejudice to respondents, and dismissal under s.168 FCR was not warranted as continuation on the merits remained possible; abuse of process was noted but was not the statutory basis for dismissal under s.167/168 at this stage.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; without costs

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • Without costs.