Bellegarde v. Carry the Kettle First Nation

Bellegarde v. Carry the Kettle First Nation

Given the customary practice in contempt proceedings, the evidence that respondents likely used CTKFN funds to pay substantial defence fees, absence of an inability-to-pay claim, partial success of the applicants notwithstanding, and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its Rule 400 discretion to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 FC 1259
Parties
Applicant: Terrina Bellegarde; Applicant: Joellen Haywahe; Respondent: Scott Eashappie; Respondent: Shawn Spencer; Respondent: Tamara Thomson; Respondent: Lucy Musqua; Respondent: Carry the Kettle First Nation
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings and Related Costs Application Arising From Judicial Review and Stay Proceedings / Costs Award Following Contempt Conviction and Sentencing (post Sentencing)
Outcome
Applicants awarded lump-sum costs against the named Respondents
Legal Topics
Contempt, Costs Award, Solicitor Client Costs, Lump Sum Costs, Apportionment of Costs, Band Council Election Disputes, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Indigenous Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Costs Law Contempt Costs Award Solicitor Client Costs +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terrina Bellegarde

Applicant

Joellen Haywahe

Applicant

Scott Eashappie

Respondent

Shawn Spencer

Respondent

Tamara Thomson

Respondent

Lucy Musqua

Respondent

Carry the Kettle First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings and Related Costs Application Arising From Judicial Review and Stay Proceedings / Costs Award Following Contempt Conviction and Sentencing (post Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitor-client costs or a lump-sum award is appropriate in contempt proceedings
  2. 2 Whether costs should be apportioned among individual respondents and whether CTKFN funds may be used to pay costs
  3. 3 Proper quantum of costs given partial success by Applicants and prior related costs awards

Ratio Decidendi

Given the customary practice in contempt proceedings, the evidence that respondents likely used CTKFN funds to pay substantial defence fees, absence of an inability-to-pay claim, partial success of the applicants notwithstanding, and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its Rule 400 discretion to award an all-inclusive lump sum of $35,000 apportioned among the respondents in proportion to their fines and prohibited use of CTKFN funds to satisfy the costs order.

Court Disposition

Applicants awarded lump-sum costs against the named Respondents

Orders

  • All-inclusive lump-sum costs award of $35,000 in favour of the Applicants
  • Apportioned payments: $14,560 to Chief Scott Eashappie; $9,730 to Tamara Thomson; $9,730 to Shawn Spencer; $980 to Lucy Musqua