44 result(s)
-
26.
Première Nation Malecite de Viger v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) - 2006 FC 187 - 2006-11-17
Federal Court DecisionsThat is indeed the manner in which contemporary case law analyzes band councils: see, for example, Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [2000] 1 F.C. 325 (F.C.A.); Francis v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake, [2003] 4 F.C. 1133; Leonard v. Gottfriedson, [1982] 1 C.N.L.R. 60 (B.C.C.S.); Isolation Sept-Iles v. La Bande [...] This approach is illustrated in the following excerpt from Gottfriedson, cited in the preceding paragraph:
-
27.
Balfour v. Norway House Cree Nation - 2006 FC 213 - 2006-02-16
Federal Court Decisions[50] In Louie v. Derrickson [1993] B.C.J No. 1338, Justice Blair, at paragraph 87, makes reference to the comments of Justice Rae in Leonard v. Gottfriedson (1981), 21 B.C.L.R. 326, regarding the need to respect the requirements of subsection 2(3) of the Indian Act when a Band Council exercises its powers: [...] In Leonard v. Gottfriedson Mr. Justice Rae, commenting on a band council resolution of the Kamloops Indian Band, stated at page 337:
-
28.
744185 Ontario Incorporated v. Canada (Transport) - 2018 FC 1024 - 2018-10-12
Federal Court DecisionsIndeed, the FCA has held third party claims are to be considered independently of the main action, even in cases involving a federal undertaking: Canadian Forest Products Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FCA 220 at paras 53–56; Canada (Attorney General) v Gottfriedson, 2014 FCA 55 at para 34.
-
29.
Kainaiwa Nation v. Canada - 2013 FC 704 - 2013-06-25
Federal Court DecisionsSee Gottfriedson v Canada, 2013 FC 546, currently under appeal. PROTHONOTARY MILCZYNSKI’S DECISION
-
30.
Laboucan v. Little Red River # 447 First Nation - 2010 FC 722 - 2010-07-02
Federal Court DecisionsIn its memorandum, the respondent deals with the issue of jurisdiction in a single paragraph which refers to the decision Kamloops Indian Band v. Gottfriedson, [1982] 1 C.N.L.R. 60, 21 B.C.L.R. 326 (B.C.S.C.).
-
31.
Wenham v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 590 - 2020-05-08
Federal Court Decisions[46] In other class actions involving government such as the Residential Schools (Gottfriedson v Canada, 2019 FC 462), 60’s Scoop (Riddle v Canada, 2018 FC 641), and Indian Day Schools (McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1075), there are non-litigation forces in play.
-
32.
Poundmaker Cree Nation v. Canada - 2017 FC 447 - 2017-05-05
Federal Court DecisionsAs the facts in the statement of claim are assumed to be true and no evidence may be considered (Rule 334.16; Canada v John Doe, 2016 FCA 191 at para 23 (“John Doe”); Gottfriedson v Canada, 2015 FC 706 at para 31), there is no need for a statement of defence in order to decide the first criteria for certification (Kornblum
-
33.
Hodgson v. Ermineskin Indian Band No. 942 - 1999-09-10
Federal Court DecisionsCounsel for the Ermineskin Band refers to substantial case law for these propositions including Leonard v. Gottfriedson (1981), 21 B.C.L.R. 326 at 343 (B.C.S.C.) Campbell v. Elliott [1988] 4 C.N.L.R. 45 at 54 (F.C.) Barry v. Garden River Band (supra) at 627-629 (Ont. C.A.), Gilbert v. Abbey [1992] 4 C.N.L.R. 21 at 23-24
-
34.
Cassidy v. Recalma-Clutesi - 2006 FC 854 - 2006-07-06
Federal Court Decisions[36] I am also guided by what Justice Rae said in Leonard v. Gottfriedson (1980) 21 B.C.L.R. 326 (British Columbia Supreme Court) in dealing with section 2(3)(b) of the Indian Act at page 337:
-
35.
Landry v. Counsil of the Abénakis of Wôlinak - 2018 FC 1211 - 2018-12-04
Federal Court Decisions[41] The Applicants submit that the non-observance of this provision is fatal to the validity of the resolutions since they were not adopted after deliberation by the majority of the Councillors assembled for that purpose (Leonard and the Kamploops Indian Band et al v Gottfriedson, 21 BCLR 326 (BCSC) (QL) at paras 49-50;
-
36.
Manuge v. Canada - 2024 FC 68 - 2024-01-17
Federal Court DecisionsFormer Chief Shane Gottfriedson and former Chief Garry Feschuk continued their active involvement in this litigation for years after their terms as elected Chiefs of their respective Nations ended.
-
37.
Stonechild v. Canada - 2022 FC 914 - 2022-06-17
Federal Court DecisionsIn Gottfriedson at paragraph 27, Justice Harrington noted that the Court may apportion fault against a person who is a non-party to a proceeding and endorsed the statement in Taylor that undertaking such apportionment without adding parties will mean fewer parties at trial, a shorter trial, and reduced costs.
-
38.
McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company - 2019 FC 1635 - 2019-12-18
Federal Court DecisionsEven though a third party claim must be a standalone claim, it must be looked at in the context of McCain’s claim not to the exclusion of the main claim; in other words, reference can still be had to the main action (Gottfriedson v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 55 at para 34).
-
39.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Nasogaluak - 2023 FCA 61 - 2023-03-17
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThe Federal Court approved a similar definition in granting certification in Gottfriedson v. Canada, 2015 FC 766 and 2015 FC 706.
-
40.
Apotex Inc. v. Ambrose - 2017 FC 487 - 2017-05-10
Federal Court DecisionsG White Management Ltd v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2006 FCA 190 [Peter G White]; Oag v Canada, [1987] 2 FC 511 (FCA); Kigowa v Canada, [1990] 1 FC 804 (FCA); Gottfriedson v Canada, 2014 FCA 55; Maguire v Canada, [1990] 1 FC 742; Abdelrazik v Canada, 2009 FC 580; and Dickson v Canada, 2016 FC 836 [Dickson].
-
41.
Percival v. Canada - 2024 FC 824 - 2024-05-30
Federal Court Decisionsthe Day Schools settlement, the Day Scholars settlement (Gottfriedson v Canada, 2021 FC 988), the Sixties Scoop settlement and the Band Reparations settlement (Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation v Canada, 2023 FC 327)—was helpful and informed the structure and substance of what eventually became the Settlement Agreement.
-
42.
Pelletier v. Delorme - 2019 FC 1487 - 2019-12-13
Federal Court DecisionsThe Respondents plead that strict adherence to both of these two requirements is necessary to satisfy subsection 20(1) (Nicola Band et al v Trans-can Displays Ltd, 2000 BCSC 1209 at paras 131, 133 [Nicola Band]; Leonard v Gottfriedson, [1982] 1 CNLR 60, [1980] BCJ No 551 at para 68; Cooper v Tsartlip Indian Band, [1997] 1
-
43.
Kahnapace v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 32 - 2023-01-11
Federal Court DecisionsRather, it reflects the fact that, at the certification stage, the Court is ill-equipped to resolve conflicts in the evidence or to engage in finely calibrated assessments of evidentiary weight [see Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57 at paras 101-102 (Pro-Sys); Gottfriedson v Canada, 2015 FC 706 at
-
44.
Watson v. Canada - 2020 FC 129 - 2020-01-28
Federal Court Decisions2(1) and 17(1) of the Federal Courts Act. Two sources of federal law are at play in this case, the Indian Act and the sui generis relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples that engages the honour of the Crown (see Gottfriedson v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 546 at paras 26-28, 362 DLR (4th) 493).