T-1747-97
IN THE MATTER OF An Appeal from the results of an election for
Chief and Council of the Batchewana Band of
Ojibways held December 11, 1996
BETWEEN:
MICHELE ROBINSON
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN as represented by
the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and
the Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JOYAL J.:
This will confirm my oral judgment delivered in Court dismissing the applicant"s motion for judicial review with respect to the legality of the election of the Batchewana Band Council on December 11, 1996.
The record of the case is quite heavy and includes lengthy affidavits by the applicant, by the Band"s Election Officer, by the Minister"s investigative staff, all with respect to the Minister"s determination that the manner and timing of the holding of the Board election was according to the Indian Band Regulations and there was no evidence of any corrupt practice.
Counsel for the applicant alleges that the Minister erred in law in deciding with an appeal of the December 11 election. Specifically, the Minister erred in failing to properly investigate or make a determination in connection with an allegation of corrupt practices and in finding that no violation of the above-noted Regulations had occurred.
Counsel for the applicant before me certainly made reasons of his arguments. Nevertheless, at the conclusion, I stated that I was far from convinced that his case merited judicial intervention and that I was dismissing the application.
I must find that the allegation of "corrupt practice" was fully and efficiently dealt with by the Minister. I agree with the respondents that no matter the issues involved in the eligibility requirements of the Band members, the results of the December 11, 1996 elections would have been the same. This was therefore neither abuse nor denial of justice.
The procedures followed by the Band Council and specifically by the Band Election Officers appear to me to be logically in keeping with regulatory requirement, and of course, in keeping with the purpose and object of the regulations.
I am particularly comforted by the comments of Stone, J.A. of this Court at a Stay Application heard in Toronto on December 4, 1996, when he said:
| "A side issue was raised by the respondents (plaintiffs) namely that the action, delaying the holding of a nomination meeting until later this day (December 4th , 1996) was not lawful. I am satisfied from the uncontradicted evidence that the action was property taken." |
In the circumstances, I should confirm that the application be dismissed with costs.
"L. Marcel Joyal" Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
July 20, 2000