Stoney Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs)

Stoney Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs)

Section 50.1(1) is a valid exercise of federal legislative power and is procedural in nature; where the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over proposed third-party proceedings and the Attorney General demonstrates a bona fide desire to bring those proceedings in provincial court, the Federal Court must stay the action and the plaintiff may recommence in provincial court within the statutory period with preservation of the original institution date; accordingly the Crown's motion to stay was granted and s.50.1 is not unconstitutional.

Citation
2006 FC 553
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: CHIEF HARVEY BAPTISTE et al (Stoney Band and constituent bands); Defendant/applicant: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (represented by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Minister of the Environment)
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action by Aboriginal Plaintiffs for Breach of Crown Fiduciary Duty (timber Harvesting) With Third Party Proceedings by Crown / Motion by Attorney General of Canada for Stay Under S.50.1 Federal Courts Act (motion Granted)
Outcome
Motion granted; action stayed under s.50.1(1) Federal Courts Act
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Separation of Powers, Judicial Independence, Limitation Periods, Third Party Proceedings, Crown Liability, Fiduciary Duty
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Aboriginal Law Civil Procedure Public Law Tort Law Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Separation of Powers +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIEF HARVEY BAPTISTE et al (Stoney Band and constituent bands)

Plaintiffs/respondents

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (represented by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Minister of the Environment)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action by Aboriginal Plaintiffs for Breach of Crown Fiduciary Duty (timber Harvesting) With Third Party Proceedings by Crown / Motion by Attorney General of Canada for Stay Under S.50.1 Federal Courts Act (motion Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.50.1(1) Federal Courts Act permits a mandatory stay where Crown desires to institute third-party proceedings beyond Federal Court jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Crown must show legal basis for its 'desire' to bring third-party proceedings or only bona fide intention
  3. 3 Whether s.50.1 is ultra vires or unconstitutional (separation of powers, judicial independence, access to justice)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 50.1(1) is a valid exercise of federal legislative power and is procedural in nature; where the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over proposed third-party proceedings and the Attorney General demonstrates a bona fide desire to bring those proceedings in provincial court, the Federal Court must stay the action and the plaintiff may recommence in provincial court within the statutory period with preservation of the original institution date; accordingly the Crown's motion to stay was granted and s.50.1 is not unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; action stayed under s.50.1(1) Federal Courts Act

Orders

  • The Action is stayed pursuant to s.50.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act
  • Plaintiffs have the option to recommence the Action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta as provided by s.50.1(2)