Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980922


Docket: A-807-97

CORAM:      DÉCARY J.A.

         McDONALD J.A.

         SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

     The BEGETIKONG ANISHNABE

             (also known as the "Ojibways of Pic River")

     Applicant

     (Appellant)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN

     DEVELOPMENT, RON IRWIN

     Respondent

     (Respondent)

     Heard at Ottawa (Ontario) on Tuesday, September 22, 1998.

     Judgment delivered from the Bench on September 22, 1998.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY:      DÉCARY J.A.


Date: 19980922


Docket: A-807-97

CORAM:      DÉCARY J.A.

         McDONALD J.A.

         SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

     The BEGETIKONG ANISHNABE

             (also known as the "Ojibways of Pic River")

     Applicant

     (Appellant)

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN

     DEVELOPMENT, RON IRWIN

     Respondent

     (Respondent)

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa (Ontario)

     on Tuesday, September 22, 1998)

DÉCARY J.A.

[1]      We find no reviewable error in the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Dubé reported at (1997), 138 F.T.R. 109 (F.C.T.D.).

[2]      The question of whether or not there was a waiver, express or implied, of a solicitor-client privilege is essentially a question of fact to be determined on the circumstances of each case. The findings of the Motions Judge are unassailable.

[3]      The principles as to whether or not the privilege can be claimed by the Crown as against the Indians in view of the existence of a special fiduciary relationship have been recently examined by this Court in Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [1995] 2 F.C. 762 (F.C.A.) and in Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [1998] 2 F.C. 60 (F.C.A.) and the Motions Judge correctly applied them in the case at bar.

[4]      The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

     "Robert Décary"

     J.A.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.