Robert Gagné

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by an Appeal Board dismissing their challenges to a band election.

The Federal Court found that the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing accommodation requests, proceeding without giving the applicants a fair opportunity to participate, and admitting new evidence without their knowledge.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's decision overturned.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' application for judicial review of a Band Council election for undue delay under section 167 of the Federal Courts Rules.

The underlying application challenged the Appeal Board's decision dismissing the applicants' election grievance.

The respondents argued the nearly two-year delay and the applicants' procedural conduct warranted dismissal.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants' conduct bordered on abuse of process, the delay was not excessive and there was no bad faith established to justify dismissing the application before a hearing on the merits.

The applicants appealed an order of a prothonotary that dismissed their motion for interim costs under the Okanagan framework.

The underlying application was for judicial review of an appeal board's decision dismissing their grievance against a band council election.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the prothonotary's conclusions that the applicants failed to establish impecuniosity, a prima facie meritorious claim, or that the issues raised transcend their individual interests and are of public importance.

The applicants appealed an order by a Prothonotary striking nine out of ten affidavits submitted in an underlying application for judicial review of an election appeal board's decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error, as the application for judicial review was limited to reviewing the Appeal Board's decision, and the excluded affidavits constituted new evidence not before the original decision-maker.