Janine Harding

The Catholic entities appealed an order allowing residential school survivors to archive their Independent Assessment Process (IAP) documents with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation without the consent of alleged perpetrators.

Canada cross-appealed, arguing the IAP documents were government records subject to federal archiving and privacy legislation and could not be destroyed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that only claimants have the right to decide whether to archive their documents.

The Court further held that the IAP documents are not government records because they are not under government control, and upheld the supervising judge's order to destroy the documents after a 15-year retention period to protect the claimants' privacy and confidentiality.

A motion sought to add the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation as a party, or alternatively as an intervenor, to a request for directions brought by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning document production obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving party argued that because the Commission’s mandate was nearing expiry, it might become responsible for receiving and archiving documents produced under any order.

The court held that the repository’s role under the settlement agreement was distinct from the Commission’s document‑collection mandate and that its presence was not necessary for the court to adjudicate the issues.

The court further held that the moving party had not demonstrated a direct interest or that its participation would enhance the court’s determination of the request for directions.

Both joinder and intervention were refused.

A motion was brought for leave to intervene as an added party in two Requests for Direction concerning the disposition of Independent Assessment Process records created under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The proposed intervenor, the National Research Centre hosted by the University of Manitoba, argued that it had a direct interest because it might be tasked with archiving the records and could assist the court on privacy and archival practices.

Several Catholic organizations opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the applicant should participate only as a friend of the court.

The court held that it retained ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over the implementation of the class action settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the settlement agreement.

The court found the applicant met the criteria for intervention and that its participation would assist the court.