Eve Coppinger

The applicant, who successfully challenged a First Nation's decision to postpone its election and the validity of federal regulations allowing such postponement, sought costs from the First Nation and the Attorney General on a solicitor-client basis or an elevated scale.

The respondents argued for no costs due to divided success or requested that only the Attorney General bear the costs.

The Federal Court rejected the arguments for divided success and solicitor-client costs but awarded elevated costs in a lump sum, finding the challenge to the regulations raised important issues of public interest affecting First Nations nationwide.

The Court ordered the Attorney General to pay $20,000 and the First Nation to pay $10,000 to the applicant, and dismissed the First Nation's claim for costs against the Attorney General.

The moving parties, former residents of St. Anne's Indian Residential School, appealed an order appointing an Independent Special Advisor (ISA) to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims and sought an interim preservation order for documents.

They argued the ISA appointment undercut ongoing proceedings and was made by a biased judge.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no serious issue on appeal due to the probable interlocutory nature of the order, no irreparable harm to the moving parties, and the balance of convenience not favoring a stay.

The preservation order was also denied due to ongoing related proceedings and Canada's undertaking to preserve documents.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim, and the plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to amend it.

The plaintiffs, descendants of the Papaschase Band, sought damages and an accounting of profits arising from the historical withdrawal of original band members from treaty via the acceptance of Métis scrip.

The Court held that the proposed amendments constituted an abuse of process because the essential claims had already been litigated and dismissed in earlier representative proceedings before the Alberta courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the motion for leave to amend, awarding costs to the Crown.

The applicant, a member of the Acho Dene Koe First Nation, sought judicial review of the band council's decision to postpone its election and extend its term of office, and challenged the validity of section 4 of the federal First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations (Prevention of Diseases).

The Federal Court held that the band council did not have the customary power to extend its own term.

The Court further declared that section 4 of the Regulations was ultra vires the regulation-making power in section 73(1)(f) of the Indian Act, finding that the power to regulate disease prevention on reserves did not extend to regulating the basic parameters of democratic governance such as the length of elected officials' terms.

The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 60 days.

The plaintiffs, members of the Kehewin Band reinstated to Indian status under Bill C-31, brought a motion for default judgment to assess damages against the Kehewin Band and Kehewin Band Council for discriminating against them and denying them the benefits of band membership.

The Court previously struck the defendants' statement of defence and granted a declaration of entitlement to band membership.

The central issue was whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims for damages against the band defendants.

Applying the test from ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, the Court found no statutory grant of jurisdiction under s. 17(4) or s. 17(5)(b) of the Federal Courts Act, as there were no conflicting claims against the Crown, nor was the band acting as an agent of the Crown.

Consequently, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the motion.

Former students of two residential schools brought a Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement alleging failures in Canada's document disclosure and reporting obligations in the Independent Assessment Process.

After partial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs exceeding $143,000, while Canada argued for partial indemnity costs in the range of $15,000 to $20,000.

The court held that costs under the IRSSA involve a special discretionary framework reflecting the reconciliation objectives of the settlement agreement.

Balancing success on the motion, litigation conduct, and fairness considerations, the court awarded reduced costs of $78,089.95.