Ratt v. Matchewan

Ratt v. Matchewan

The motion for reconsideration was dismissed because Rule 397(1) did not apply: the requested declaration concerned persons who were not parties and raised a matter that was not overlooked or necessary to the original decision, so the court could not grant an ex post facto declaration.

Citation
2010 FC 432
Parties
Applicants (respondents in This Motion): CASEY RATT, RICKEY DECOURSAY, ROGER JEROME, WAYNE PAPATIE and DONAT THUSKY IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CHIEF AND BAND COUNCIL and THE ELDERS OF MITCHIKINABIKOK INIK (ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE) and the PEOPLE; Respondents (moving Party): JEAN MAURICE MATCHEWAN, BENJAMIN NOTTAWAY, EUGENE NOTTAWAY, JOEY DECOURSAY and DAVID WAWATIE IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE PURPORTED NEW CHIEF AND BAND COUNCIL OF THE ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE CUSTOMARY BAND COUNCIL and EDDY NOTAWAY, MICHEL THUSKY, JEANNINE MATCHEWAN and LOUISA PAPATIE, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE MITCHIKANIBIKOK INIK ELDERS COUNCIL
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Application (judicial Review) and Related Motion for Reconsideration / Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 397 (post Judgment)
Outcome
Motion for reconsideration dismissed with costs in favor of the Applicants.
Legal Topics
Reconsideration, Federal Courts Rules 397, Party Standing, Declaratory Relief, Procedure for Post Judgment Motions
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Indigenous Law Civil Procedure Reconsideration Federal Courts Rules 397 Party Standing Declaratory Relief Procedure for Post Judgment Motions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CASEY RATT, RICKEY DECOURSAY, ROGER JEROME, WAYNE PAPATIE and DONAT THUSKY IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CHIEF AND BAND COUNCIL and THE ELDERS OF MITCHIKINABIKOK INIK (ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE) and the PEOPLE

Applicants (respondents in This Motion)

JEAN MAURICE MATCHEWAN, BENJAMIN NOTTAWAY, EUGENE NOTTAWAY, JOEY DECOURSAY and DAVID WAWATIE IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE PURPORTED NEW CHIEF AND BAND COUNCIL OF THE ALGONQUINS OF BARRIERE LAKE CUSTOMARY BAND COUNCIL and EDDY NOTAWAY, MICHEL THUSKY, JEANNINE MATCHEWAN and LOUISA PAPATIE, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE MITCHIKANIBIKOK INIK ELDERS COUNCIL

Respondents (moving Party)

Procedural Posture

Application (judicial Review) and Related Motion for Reconsideration / Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 397 (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a motion for reconsideration under Rule 397(1) was properly brought
  2. 2 Whether the court may make declarations about non-parties
  3. 3 Whether the issue sought was necessary to or overlooked in the original decision

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for reconsideration was dismissed because Rule 397(1) did not apply: the requested declaration concerned persons who were not parties and raised a matter that was not overlooked or necessary to the original decision, so the court could not grant an ex post facto declaration.

Court Disposition

Motion for reconsideration dismissed with costs in favor of the Applicants.

Orders

  • Motion for reconsideration dismissed with costs in favor of the Applicants.