Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Owen v. Little Grand Rapids First Nation

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court held that the First Nation lacked statutory authority to remove the applicant; the November 2019 resolution could only be a request to the Minister and not an effective removal, therefore the removal was unlawful and was quashed; costs were awarded in a lump sum of $5,000 rather than on a solicitor-client basis due to absence of evidence of reprehensible conduct.

Court disposition

Application allowed; decision removing the applicant quashed; costs awarded to applicant

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is allowed.
  • The decision to remove the applicant from his position as councillor of Little Grand Rapids First Nation is quashed.
  • Costs are awarded to the applicant in a lump sum of $5,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

02

Material facts

Parties

Councillor Blair Owen

Applicant Counsel: Jared Wheeler

Little Grand Rapids First Nation as represented by Chief Raymond Keeper, Councillor Diane Keeper, Councillor Clinton Keeper, Councillor Roy Dusnford, Councillor Hilda Crow and Councillor Wendy Leveque

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Costs Awarded to Applicant: CAD 5,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The removal was unlawful because only the Minister may declare a councillor's office vacant under s.78(2)(b) of the Indian Act; Mr. Owen received no notice of the meeting, was not authorized to be absent, was not notified his status was in jeopardy, and his salary was withheld without lawful authority.
Respondent
Respondents did not appear or participate despite being served; there is no recorded argument or evidence defending the removal or explaining non-appearance.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5, s.78(2)(b)

    Only the Minister may declare a band chief or councillor's office vacant for absence under s.78(2)(b) of the Indian Act; a band resolution can only request the Minister to exercise that power

  2. 02

    Administrative law principles applied by Federal Court jurisprudence

    A decision made without statutory authority is ultra vires and subject to quashing on judicial review

  3. 03

    Whalen v Fort McMurray No 468 First Nation, 2019 FC 1119

    Solicitor-client costs are exceptional and generally require proof of reprehensible conduct by the opposing party

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court held that the First Nation lacked statutory authority to remove the applicant; the November 2019 resolution could only be a request to the Minister and not an effective removal, therefore the removal was unlawful and was quashed; costs were awarded in a lump sum of $5,000 rather than on a solicitor-client basis due to absence of evidence of reprehensible conduct.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted absence of any explanation for the respondents' non-participation and declined to infer reprehensible conduct on that basis
  • The decision reiterates that band governance actions must conform to the limits set by the Indian Act and that withholding salary without lawful authority is impermissible

Court disposition

Application allowed; decision removing the applicant quashed; costs awarded to applicant

  • The application for judicial review is allowed.
  • The decision to remove the applicant from his position as councillor of Little Grand Rapids First Nation is quashed.
  • Costs are awarded to the applicant in a lump sum of $5,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 26 November 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 26 November 2020

2020 FC 1092

Owen v. Little Grand Rapids First Nation Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-11-26 Neutral citation 2020 FC 1092 File numbers T-739-20 Decision Content Date: 20201126 Docket: T-739-20 Citation: 2020 FC 1092 Ottawa, Ontario, November 26, 2020 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond BETWEEN:

COUNCILLOR BLAIR OWEN Applicant and LITTLE GRAND RAPIDS FIRST NATION AS REPRESENTED BY CHIEF RAYMOND KEEPER, COUNCILLOR DIANE KEEPER, COUNCILLOR CLINTON KEEPER, COUNCILLOR ROY DUSNFORD, COUNCILLOR HILDA CROW AND COUNCILLOR WENDY LEVEQUE Respondents

JUDGMENT AND REASONS (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 26, 2020) [1] Mr. Owen seeks judicial review of the decision of the Little Grand Rapids First Nation to remove him as councillor. The First Nation and the individual respondents did not appear or otherwise participate in these proceedings, although having been duly served. Mr. Owen has brought evidence that his removal was unlawful. As a result, I am granting his application for judicial review. [2] The Little Grand Rapids First Nation is governed by the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5, and has not adopted its own election code. Thus, its elections are governed by sections 74-79 of the Indian Act. [3] In particular, section 78 of the Indian Act deals with the removal of councillors in the following terms: 78. […] 78. […] (2) The office of chief or councillor of a band becomes vacant when (2) Le poste de chef ou de conseiller d’une bande devient vacant dans les cas suivants : […] […] (b) the Minister declares that in his opinion the person who holds that office b) le ministre déclare qu’à son avis le titulaire, selon le cas : […] […] (ii) has been absent from three consecutive meetings of the council without being authorized to do so […] (ii) a, sans autorisation, manqué les réunions du conseil trois fois consécutives […] [4] On November 22, 2019, a resolution removing Mr. Owen from council on the basis

of three consecutive absences was adopted at a community meeting. This resolution is embodied in a letter to Mr. Owen dated January 13, 2020 and signed by the chief and four councillors, being a quorum of council. On April 20, 2020, the chief and five councillors wrote to the Minister of Indigenous Services to request confirmation of the decision to remove Mr. Owen from council. The record does not disclose what response, if any, the Minister gave to this request. [5] Mr. Owen states that he received copies of these documents only on June 24, 2020, after making numerous inquiries with the First Nation to understand why his salary had not been paid since December 2019. He also states that he never received any notice of the November 22, 2019 meeting or any indication that his status as councillor was in jeopardy. [6] The First Nation does not have the power to remove a councillor. Pursuant to section 78(2)b) of the Indian Act, this power is conferred upon the Minister. Thus, the resolution adopted in November 2019 could at most be considered as a request to the Minister to exercise his power. Yet, the First Nation treated it as a legally effective decision and stopped paying Mr. Owen’s salary. This was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Act. The decision to remove Mr. Owen from council must thus be quashed. [7] Mr. Owen asks for his costs on a solicitor-client basis. I

analyzed the issue of costs awards in First Nations governance cases in Whalen v Fort McMurray No 468 First Nation, 2019 FC 1119. I noted that proof of reprehensible conduct is usually required to justify an award of costs on a solicitor-client basis. I have no information whatsoever explaining why the respondents failed to appear nor any context allowing me to conclude that their conduct was reprehensible. Given the circumstances of this case, I will award costs in a lump sum of $5,000. JUDGMENT in T-739-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1. The application for judicial review is allowed.

2. The decision to remove the applicant from his position as councillor of Little Grand Rapids First Nation is quashed.

3. Costs are awarded to the applicant in a lump sum of $5,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements. "Sébastien Grammond" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: T-739-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: COUNCILLOR BLAIR OWEN v LITTLE GRAND RAPIDS FIRST NATION AS REPRESENTED BY CHIEF RAYMOND KEEPER, COUNCILLOR DIANE KEEPER, COUNCILLOR CLINTON KEEPER, COUNCILLOR ROY DUSNFORD, COUNCILLOR HILDA CROW AND COUNCILLOR WENDY LEVEQUE PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN OTTAWA, ONTARIO, AND Winnipeg, Manitoba DATE OF HEARING: November 26, 2020 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GRAMMOND J. DATED: november 26, 2020 APPEARANCES: Jared Wheeler For The Applicant SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jerch Law Barristers and Solicitors Winnipeg, Manitoba For The Applicant

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Whalen v Fort McMurray No 468 First Nation, 2019 FC 1119

Case cited

Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5, ss.74-79

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.