Samuel Bogetti

The plaintiffs claimed damages for wrongful termination of a Consulting Agreement, and the defendant counterclaimed for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding no misrepresentation or reliance.

The court also dismissed the balance of the plaintiffs' claim, finding the defendant was entitled to terminate the Consulting Agreement due to the plaintiffs' wilful conduct harming business relationships through lack of forthrightness.

However, the plaintiffs were granted judgment for unreimbursed expenses.

Two competing groups sought judicial review regarding the lawful governance of the Da'naxda'xw First Nation (DFN).

The Glendale Band Council sought to be recognized as the lawful governing body, while Peters and Duncan sought recognition for the Hereditary Chiefs Council (HCC).

The Court held that neither group established broad consensus for their authority to govern.

The Court quashed the suspension of Gordon Glendale by the HCC due to a lack of authority and procedural fairness.

The Court ordered an all-members meeting to confirm a new custom of governance and appoint an interim leadership council.

The respondents in the underlying application (the Hereditary Chiefs Council) appealed a Prothonotary's order dismissing their motion to disqualify JFK Law from acting for the applicants (the Glendale Council) due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Federal Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Prothonotary's decision.

The Court agreed with the Prothonotary's finding that the underlying application was in the nature of quo warranto challenging the authority of individual respondents, not an action against the First Nation itself, thus negating the alleged conflict.

The appeal was dismissed with ordinary costs to the applicants.