Johnny v. Dease River First Nation

Johnny v. Dease River First Nation

The application is granted in part: the challenges to the April 25, 2022 and May 5, 2023 BCRs are dismissed as out of time; the 2024 BCR was invalid because Chief and Council's mandate expired on July 6, 2024 and they lacked authority to pass the 2024 BCR; the process for adopting the 2024 Amended Regulations breached procedural fairness because the proposed sweeping changes required meaningful notice, consultation and a ratification vote; appropriate remedy is declaratory relief, an order in the nature of mandamus directing appointment of an independent Electoral Officer and a timetable for a General Assembly to ratify the Amended Regulations and a consequential election, together with a...

Citation
2024 FC 1636
Parties
Applicant: Ruby Johnny; Respondent: Dease River First Nation; Respondent (chief): Myles Manygreyhorses; Respondent (councillor): James Malone; Respondent (councillor): Ethan Alexander Carlick; Respondent (councillor): Michael Johnny
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (federal Court) / Judgment and Reasons (decision)
Outcome
Application granted in part; 2022 and 2023 BCRs dismissed as out of time; 2024 BCR found beyond the authority of Chief and Council and procedural fairness breached; remedial orders issued.
Legal Topics
Custom Election Regulations, Band Council Resolutions, Extension of Term of Office, Ratification Vote, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Timeliness
Source Language
English
Indigenous Law Administrative Law Election Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Custom Election Regulations Band Council Resolutions Extension of Term of Office +4 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruby Johnny

Applicant

Dease River First Nation

Respondent

Myles Manygreyhorses

Respondent (chief)

James Malone

Respondent (councillor)

Ethan Alexander Carlick

Respondent (councillor)

Michael Johnny

Respondent (councillor)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (federal Court) / Judgment and Reasons (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the challenges to the 2022 and 2023 BCRs timely?
  2. 2 Is the 2024 BCR properly before the Court?
  3. 3 What is the applicable standard of review?

Ratio Decidendi

The application is granted in part: the challenges to the April 25, 2022 and May 5, 2023 BCRs are dismissed as out of time; the 2024 BCR was invalid because Chief and Council's mandate expired on July 6, 2024 and they lacked authority to pass the 2024 BCR; the process for adopting the 2024 Amended Regulations breached procedural fairness because the proposed sweeping changes required meaningful notice, consultation and a ratification vote; appropriate remedy is declaratory relief, an order in the nature of mandamus directing appointment of an independent Electoral Officer and a timetable for a General Assembly to ratify the Amended Regulations and a consequential election, together with a...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; 2022 and 2023 BCRs dismissed as out of time; 2024 BCR found beyond the authority of Chief and Council and procedural fairness breached; remedial orders issued.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review granted in part
  • Application to quash the April 25, 2022 and May 5, 2023 Band Council Resolutions dismissed as out of time