MacNeil v. Canada (Indian and Northern Affairs Department)

MacNeil v. Canada (Indian and Northern Affairs Department)

The action against the Crown is dismissed as statute-barred because the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving non-discoverability; the public acts (1968 certificate of possession and subsequent dealings) put the plaintiff on inquiry and the limitation period therefore ran, and summary judgment was appropriate to decide discoverability against the Crown.

Citation
2002 FCT 792
Parties
Plaintiff: Minnie Norma MacNeil; Plaintiff (representative of Heirs): Robert Garry Miller; Defendant (crown): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Indian and Northern Affairs Department); Defendant (original Property Holder): Charlotte Mildred Martin (deceased); Defendant (heir): Randolf Lawrence Martin; Defendant (heir): Joyce Patricia Martin; Defendant (heir): Chad Everitt Martin; Defendant (heir): David Allan Martin; Defendant (heir): Bradly Kennith Hill
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Declarations and Damages (negligence and Property Related) / Motion for Summary Judgment (judgment on Discoverability/limitations)
Outcome
Motion allowed; action against the Crown dismissed as statute-barred
Legal Topics
Discoverability, Statute of Limitations, Summary Judgment, Certificate of Possession, Crown Liability, Laches, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Limitations Tort/negligence Indigenous/aboriginal Law Property Law Administrative Law Discoverability Statute of Limitations +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minnie Norma MacNeil

Plaintiff

Robert Garry Miller

Plaintiff (representative of Heirs)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Indian and Northern Affairs Department)

Defendant (crown)

Charlotte Mildred Martin (deceased)

Defendant (original Property Holder)

Randolf Lawrence Martin

Defendant (heir)

Joyce Patricia Martin

Defendant (heir)

Chad Everitt Martin

Defendant (heir)

David Allan Martin

Defendant (heir)

Bradly Kennith Hill

Defendant (heir)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Declarations and Damages (negligence and Property Related) / Motion for Summary Judgment (judgment on Discoverability/limitations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim against the Crown is statute-barred under the Ontario Limitations Act due to discoverability
  2. 2 Who bears the burden of proof on discoverability
  3. 3 Whether laches precludes the Crown from bringing a summary judgment motion

Ratio Decidendi

The action against the Crown is dismissed as statute-barred because the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving non-discoverability; the public acts (1968 certificate of possession and subsequent dealings) put the plaintiff on inquiry and the limitation period therefore ran, and summary judgment was appropriate to decide discoverability against the Crown.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; action against the Crown dismissed as statute-barred

Orders

  • Action as against the Crown dismissed
  • No costs awarded to the Crown