Date: 19990224
Docket: T-1314-98
Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday the 24th day of February, 1999
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
BETWEEN:
ROGER MISQUADIS, PETER OGDEN, MONA PERRY, DOROTHY PHIPPS-
WALKER AND CHIEF BOB CRAWFORD
Applicants,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent,
- and -
DARWIN LEWIS AND THE ABORIGINAL COUNCIL OF WINNIPEG INC., THE
ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA CHIEFS, THE METIS NATIONAL COUNCIL
INC., THE METIS NATION OF ONTARIO SECRETARIAT AND THE
MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION INC.,
Intervenors.
ORDER
For oral reasons expressed and to be supplemented by written reasons it is ordered that the hearing of this application be adjourned to a day to be fixed by the Court after the Court is satisfied that this application is ripe for hearing.
I will remain seized of the application and will provide at the request of the parties such directions as may be necessary.
"François Lemieux"
Judge
Date: 19990226
Docket: T-1314-98
BETWEEN:
ROGER MISQUADIS, PETER OGDEN, MONA PERRY, DOROTHY PHIPPS-
WALKER AND CHIEF BOB CRAWFORD
Applicants,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent,
- and -
DARWIN LEWIS AND THE ABORIGINAL COUNCIL OF WINNIPEG INC., THE
ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA CHIEFS, THE METIS NATIONAL COUNCIL
INC., THE METIS NATION OF ONTARIO SECRETARIAT AND THE
MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION INC.,
Intervenors.
REASONS FOR ORDER
[Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Wednesday, February 24, 1999, as edited]
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] At the hearing of this judicial review application which commenced in Toronto on Monday, February 22, 1999, an issue arose the next day as to how this application should proceed in the context of a concern which I had previously identified concerning the possibility of the application being moot. It was suggested by counsel for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that an adjournment might be appropriate in the circumstances. I heard argument on this point. The adjournment was favoured by the applicants and the intervenors Darwin Lewis and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, Inc. The Attorney General for Canada vigorously opposed any adjournment. The other intervenors appeared somewhat neutral on the point.
[2] Rule 36 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, provides that a hearing may be adjourned by the Court from time to time as the Court considers just. The granting of an adjournment is clearly a discretionary matter for the Court to be exercised in appropriate circumstances.
[3] I considered the matter overnight and I believe that it is in the interest of justice that the hearing of this application should be adjourned to a day to be fixed by the Court upon motion by the parties after the Court is satisfied that the application is ready for hearing.
[4] I will remain seized of the application and will provide such directions as may be necessary at the request of the parties.
[5] After I delivered these reasons orally, I met in chambers with counsel for all parties and the intervenors and, on consent, it was agreed by them that this application should be case managed pursuant to rules 384 and 385 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[6] It is my view that a recent series of events have made this application unripe for hearing. These events are principally anchored on the following facts:
| (1) the recently filed supplementary memorandum of fact and law of the applicants and the intervenors supporting the applicants materially impacts the application and makes concessions or clarifications which affect the respondent in terms of its previously filed memorandum of fact and law; |
| (2) the late interventions permitted by the Court on February 8, 1999, blur the record in terms of evidence; |
| (3) the recent filing by the respondent of supplementary materials identifying a new strategy, The Aboriginal Human Resources Strategy, effective April 1, 1999, focussing, in part, on ensuring the human resources needs of urban and off-reserve aboriginal communities; and |
| (4) the fact that the factual foundation buttressing the application has become unsettled given that the current funding regime through Regional Bilateral Agreements is to end March 31, 1999, raising a question of the practicality of any judgment the Court might make. |
[7] In my view, the result of these events has:
| (1) disconnected the issues between the parties; |
| (2) made the declaration sought by the applicants uncertain and confusing; |
| (3) made the remedy sought imprecise; and |
| (4) raised a question of the practicality of the Court's judgment. |
[8] Because of these events and the impact they have on the orderly conduct of the hearing, in my view, it is important that the hearing be refocussed, the issues be sharpened and redefined and that the declarations and remedies sought be the subject of more precision.
[9] An adjournment, on the terms outlined above, will serve that purpose and is the basis for my decision.
[10] I make two additional points. First, the Government of Canada is embarked upon a very important task of reframing the funding and delivery of its training programs to the Aboriginal Peoples. This adjournment should not be interpreted as limiting or having any effect upon the choices the Government of Canada proposes to take in this regard. The adjournment is not an indirect way for the Court to get involved in any implementation negotiations. How the Government of Canada chooses to deal with groups of Aboriginal Peoples in the context of its new strategy is up to the Government of Canada as is the implementation of the new strategy itself.
[11] Second, I am not making any ruling on the issue of whether this application for judicial review may become moot after April 1, 1999. It is I who raised the issue at the hearing itself and not one of the parties. In this context, and given that the shape of the new Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy is unknown at this time, any determination of this issue at this time would be made without an appropriate factual foundation.
François Lemieux
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
FEBRUARY 26, 1999