Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

The NAC was denied standing because its participation would likely engage s.4.11(10) of the IRSSA by increasing procedural and/or compensation costs to Canada, and because signatory representatives (Independent Counsel and the National Consortium) can and should participate in their own names to protect their clients' interests.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1097
Parties
Plaintiffs: Larry Philip Fontaine et al; Defendants: The Attorney General of Canada et al; Applicant: Monitor; Applicant: Transition Coordinator; Intervenor (sought): National Administration Committee; Signatory Representatives: Independent Counsel and National Consortium (representatives); Court Counsel: Court Counsel
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Class Proceedings (administration of Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement) / Ruling on Standing in Request for Direction
Outcome
Standing denied to those purporting to act on behalf of the National Administration Committee
Legal Topics
Standing, Interpretation of Settlement Agreement, Implementation of Settlement, Canada Veto (s.4.11(10) Irssa)
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Class Actions Indigenous Law Procedural Law Contract/settlement Interpretation Standing Interpretation of Settlement Agreement Implementation of Settlement +1 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larry Philip Fontaine et al

Plaintiffs

The Attorney General of Canada et al

Defendants

Monitor

Applicant

Transition Coordinator

Applicant

National Administration Committee

Intervenor (sought)

Independent Counsel and National Consortium (representatives)

Signatory Representatives

Court Counsel

Court Counsel

Procedural Posture

Class Proceedings (administration of Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement) / Ruling on Standing in Request for Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Administration Committee (NAC) has standing to participate in the Request for Direction
  2. 2 Whether NAC participation would 'increase the costs of the Approval Orders whether for compensation or procedural matters' within s.4.11(10) of the IRSSA
  3. 3 Whether signatory representatives can effectively represent the interests without NAC standing

Ratio Decidendi

The NAC was denied standing because its participation would likely engage s.4.11(10) of the IRSSA by increasing procedural and/or compensation costs to Canada, and because signatory representatives (Independent Counsel and the National Consortium) can and should participate in their own names to protect their clients' interests.

Court Disposition

Standing denied to those purporting to act on behalf of the National Administration Committee

Orders

  • Denied standing to those purporting to act on behalf of the NAC to participate in the Request for Direction
  • Independent Counsel and the National Consortium may participate in the RFD in their own names as signatories to the IRSSA