Esquega v. Canada (Attorney General)

Esquega v. Canada (Attorney General)

The respondent's motions to strike the s.15 declaratory relief and to convert the judicial review to an action were dismissed because the applicants demonstrated standing and adduced some evidentiary basis such that the Charter claim was not bereft of any possibility of success; the Court granted a limited extension...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 FC 297
Parties
Applicants: Eugene Esquega; Brian King; Gwendoline King; Hugh King Sr.; Rita King; Wayne King; Lawrence Shonias; Owen Barry; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Order‑in‑council / Motions Hearing (motion to Strike/convert, Scheduling and Confidentiality)
Outcome
Respondent's motions to strike Charter relief and to convert to an action dismissed; scheduling and confidentiality relief granted; costs awarded to applicants
Legal Topics
Charter S.15 Equality, Indian Act S.75 Eligibility, Order‑in‑council Review, Motion to Strike, Conversion to Action, Confidentiality Order, Costs
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Aboriginal Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Charter S.15 Equality Indian Act S.75 Eligibility Order‑in‑council Review +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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Esquega; Brian King; Gwendoline King; Hugh King Sr.; Rita King; Wayne King; Lawrence Shonias; Owen Barry

Applicants

The Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Order‑in‑council / Motions Hearing (motion to Strike/convert, Scheduling and Confidentiality)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's motions are res judicata or abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether Charter s.15 declaratory relief should be struck as bereft of possibility of success
  3. 3 Whether portions of the judicial review raising Charter issues should be converted to an action

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's motions to strike the s.15 declaratory relief and to convert the judicial review to an action were dismissed because the applicants demonstrated standing and adduced some evidentiary basis such that the Charter claim was not bereft of any possibility of success; the Court granted a limited extension for respondent's affidavits, ordered timelines for motions arising from cross‑examinations, directed a confidentiality order for investigative reports, and awarded costs of $7,500 to the applicants.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motions to strike Charter relief and to convert to an action dismissed; scheduling and confidentiality relief granted; costs awarded to applicants

Orders

  • Motion to strike requests for declaratory relief pursuant to s.15 of the Canadian Charter dismissed
  • Motion to convert portions of the Notice of Application relating to s.15 to an action dismissed