FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION |
Trial Division |
Charlie v. Vuntut Gwitchin Development Corp.
T-673-00
2002 FCT 344, Hargrave P.
26/3/02
20 pp.
Motion to strike out further amended statement of claim for want of jurisdiction, as against Vuntut Gwitchin defendants-- Plaintiff, disabled Aboriginal person living in Victoria, B.C., alleging discrimination against defendants who have denied him information about substantial settlement between First Nation, Crown--Member of Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, born in 1959 at Old Crow, Yukon, to family active in First Nation's affairs--In 1993, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, comprised of between 460 and 770 members, signed settlement agreement with Crown worth $36 million, 2,990 square miles of land including subsurface rights, various other benefits in return for release of all claims against Crown-- Plaintiff arguing Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation not only owes him various fiduciary duties, but also should not be permitted to retain portion of settlement benefits which should rightfully belong to him--Test for striking out for want of cause of action plain, obvious, beyond doubt claim, defence will not succeed--Whether plaintiff could establish at least one of statutory grants of jurisdiction fulfills first element of three-part test set out in ITO--International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 --Reference in Federal Court Act, s. 17(4) to "conflicting claims against the Crown" in context of federal Crown-- Court unable to say plainly, obviously, beyond doubt claim cannot succeed--Plaintiff's claim should not be terminated at this point but, on pleadings, information, argument, claim should be allowed to proceed on basis of jurisdiction under Act, s. 17(4)--Plaintiff also relying upon s. 17(5)(b) as possible head of jurisdiction--No facts supporting argument Vuntut Gwitchin defendants servants, agents of Crown--Even assuming defendants not bound by Charter, federal government responsible for Charter consequences, that does not bring situation within Federal Court Act, s. 17(5)(b)-- That jurisdiction over Vuntut Gwitchin defendants, by reason of s. 17(5)(b), jurisdictional argument that plainly, obviously, beyond doubt will not succeed--Plaintiff's argument for jurisdiction by way of Federal Court Act, s. 17(4) not one plainly, obviously, beyond doubt doomed to failure--Motion dismissed--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 17 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 3)--Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act, 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985 Appendix II, No. 44].