Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20140910


Docket: A-271-13

Citation: 2014 FCA 197

CORAM:

NADON J.A.

TRUDEL J.A.

SCOTT J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

Appellant

 

and

 

MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

 

Respondents

 

Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on September 10, 2014.

Judgment delivered from the bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on September 10, 2014.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

TRUDEL J.A.

 


Date: 20140910


Docket: A-271-13

Citation: 2014 FCA 197

CORAM:

NADON J.A.

TRUDEL J.A.

SCOTT J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

Appellant

 

and

 

MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

 

Respondents

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on September 10, 2014.)

TRUDEL J.A.

[1]               Although Justice Gagné was entitled to decide the matter de novo and reach a different conclusion from that of Prothonotary Morneau (T-420-12, 2013-08-01), and despite a most remarkable presentation by the representatives of the members of the Conseil autochtone de la Côte-Est, we are all of the opinion that the order of Justice Gagné allowing the appeal from the order of Prothonotary Morneau is based on an incorrect principle of law.

[2]               An analysis of the record shows that the question whether the respondents raised facts that disclose a valid cause of action had already been decided by another judge of the Federal Court in docket T-1692-12. Accordingly, Justice Gagné should have dismissed the appeal before her on grounds of estoppel and, we would add, abuse of process. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the parties’ arguments regarding the treaties and titles mentioned in the respondents’ memorandum of fact and law or regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to rule on the remedies sought by them on the merits.

[3]               For these reasons, the appeal will be allowed with costs, the decision of the Federal Court dated August 1, 2013, will be set aside, and the decision of the prothonotary dated July 17, 2012, will be restored.

“Johanne Trudel”

J.A.

Certified true translation

Erich Klein


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITORS OF RECORD


DOCKET:

A-271-13

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:

Fredericton, NEW Brunswick

 

DATE OF HEARING:

September 10, 2014

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

NADON J.A.

TRUDEL J.A.

SCOTT J.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:

TRUDEL J.A.

 

APPEARANCES:

Edith Campbell

Julien S. Matte

FOR THE AppeLlant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

Michelle Landry

Jean-Paul Landry

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

Jean-Paul Landry

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THECONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

William F. Pentney

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

FOR THE AppeLlant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

Conseil autochtone de la Côte-Est

Alcida, New Brunswick

 

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

 

Conseil autochtone de la Côte Est

Laplante, New Brunswick

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MICHELLE LANDRY AND JEAN-PAUL LANDRY IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSEIL AUTOCHTONE DE LA CÔTE-EST

 

 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.