Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Federal Court of Appeal

Cour d'appel fédérale

Date: 20120315

Dockets: A-146-11

A-165-11

 

Citation: 2012 FCA 90

 

CORAM:       PELLETIER J.A.

                        DAWSON J.A.

                        STRATAS J.A.

A-146-11

BETWEEN:

CHIEF MARTIN OWENS

Appellant

and

NELSON KEEPER, and HER MAJESTY

THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA,

as represented by THE MINISTER OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

 

Respondents

 

and

A-165-11

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA,

as represented by THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Appellant

and

NELSON KEEPER, CHIEF MARTIN OWENS,

COUNCILLOR DEON LAM and DEPUTY

ELECTORAL OFFICER IAN KEEPER

Respondents

 

 

 

Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 15, 2012.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 15, 2012.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                            PELLETIER J.A.

 


Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d'appel fédérale

Date: 20120315

Dockets: A-146-11

A-165-11

 

Citation: 2012 FCA 90

 

CORAM:       PELLETIER J.A.

                        DAWSON J.A.

                        STRATAS J.A.

A-146-11

BETWEEN:

CHIEF MARTIN OWENS

Appellant

and

NELSON KEEPER, and HER MAJESTY

THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA,

as represented by THE MINISTER OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

 

Respondents

 

and

A-165-11

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA,

as represented by THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Appellant

and

NELSON KEEPER, CHIEF MARTIN OWENS,

COUNCILLOR DEON LAM and DEPUTY

ELECTORAL OFFICER IAN KEEPER

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 15, 2012)

PELLETIER J.A.

[1]               In the circumstances of these cases, we have decided not to exercise our discretion to hear these appeals relating to the conduct of Indian Band elections, notwithstanding their mootness.

 

[2]               The Crown asks this Court to hear these matters on the basis that, given the 2 year term of office, the questions are elusive of review. We cannot agree. Where the parties pursue their remedies diligently, and where the Court’s assistance is requested in expediting applications and appeals, there is no reason why these matters cannot be heard in a timely fashion.

 

[3]               As the factors identified in Borowski v. Canada [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, we are not satisfied that hearing these appeals is an appropriate use of judicial resources. In particular, we are of the view that failure of the parties to address the role of section 78 of the Indian Act in the interpretation of the regulations in issue in this appeal would impede our ability to reach a conclusion with confidence.

 

[4]               In the result, we will dismiss these appeals with each party to bear its own costs. In doing so, we do not wish to be taken to be expressing an opinion as to the soundness of the decision under appeal, cited at 2011 FC 307.

 

"J.D. Denis Pelletier"

J.A.

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-146-11

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED MARCH 14, 2011, DOCKET NO. T-1252-10

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              A-146-11

 

                                                                                                CHIEF MARTIN OWENS v. NELSON KEEPER ET AL.

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Winnipeg, Manitoba

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          March 15, 2012

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       PELLETIER J.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            PELLETIER, J.A.

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Martin U. Kramer

FOR THE APPELLANT

CHIEF MARTIN OWENS

 

 

Martin S. Minuk and Melissa N. Burkett

 

 

Yvette Creft and Lisa Cholosky

 

 

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

NELSON KEEPER

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL.

 

 


SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Olschewski Feuer Davie

Barristers & Solicitors

Winnipeg, Manitoba

FOR THE APPELLANT

CHIEF MARTIN OWENS

 

 

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson LLP

Barristers & Solicitors

Winnipeg, Manitoba

 

Myles J. Kirvan

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

NELSON KEEPER

 

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL.

 

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-165-11

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED MARCH 14, 2011, DOCKET NO. T-1252-10

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              A-165-11

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL. v. NELSON KEEPER ET AL.

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Winnipeg, Manitoba

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          March 15, 2012

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       PELLETIER J.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            PELLETIER, J.A.

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

 

 

Yvette Creft and Lisa Cholosky

 

 

 

 

Martin S. Minuk and Melissa N. Burkett

 

 

 

Martin U. Kramer

FOR THE APPELLANT

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL.

 

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

NELSON KEEPER

 

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

CHIEF MARTIN OWENS

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

 

 

Myles J. Kirvan

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

 

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson LLP

Barristers & Solicitors

Winnipeg, Manitoba

 

Olschewski Feuer Davie

Barristers & Solicitors

Winnipeg, Manitoba

FOR THE APPELLANT

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL.

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

NELSON KEEPER

 

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

CHIEF MARTIN OWENS

 

 

 

 

 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.