James A. Mercury

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellants argued that the limitation period was suspended under s. 52 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, because an arbitration had been commenced via correspondence, or alternatively, that the respondent was estopped from pleading a limitations defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parties' correspondence merely proposed an arbitration agreement and did not commence an arbitration under s. 23 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court also found no evidence to support an estoppel claim.

The appellant Indian band received federal funding under a Comprehensive Funding Arrangement (CFA), which was deposited into an off-reserve bank account.

The respondent creditor sought to garnish these funds to satisfy a consent judgment.

The band argued the funds were exempt from seizure under ss. 89 and 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the funds were not physically situated on a reserve under s. 89, rejecting a notional situs test.

Furthermore, the Court held that the word 'agreement' in s. 90(1)(b) is limited to agreements that flesh out treaty obligations.

Because the band failed to prove the CFA funds were ancillary to a treaty, the funds were not deemed to be situated on a reserve and were subject to garnishment.