Robert J. M. Janes

The plaintiffs, representing the beneficiaries of Treaty 3, brought a proposed representation action against the Crown alleging breaches of the treaty's education provisions and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs moved for authorization to proceed as a representation action under Rule 12.08.

The Crown moved under Rule 21 to dismiss the action as non-justiciable and for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the Crown's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' motions, finding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was untenable, the necessary parties (the 28 Indian bands) were not before the court, and the breach of treaty claim as pleaded was a non-justiciable political dispute about education policy and funding.

The applicants, members of the Grassy Meadows First Nation, brought an application for judicial review challenging the Minister of Natural Resources' authority to approve forest licences and management plans that allegedly infringed their Treaty 3 hunting and fishing rights.

The Minister and the licensee, Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., brought motions to quash the application.

The Divisional Court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to quash an application for judicial review.

The court quashed the application on the basis that much of the relief sought, which involved constitutional challenges and declarations against a private company, fell outside the court's judicial review jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the application because the complex factual and constitutional issues, including aboriginal treaty rights, required a full trial rather than a summary application.

The application was quashed with leave to commence an action.

The appellant First Nation passed assessment and taxation by-laws pursuant to the Indian Act and assessed taxes against the respondent, a provincial Crown agent operating a utility on the reserve.

The respondent refused to pay, arguing immunity under s. 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the by-laws imposed taxes rather than regulatory charges, as they were designed to raise revenue for general local purposes and were not connected to a regulatory scheme.

Consequently, s. 125 rendered the by-laws constitutionally inapplicable to the respondent.