Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: Bazley v. Curry; This case is an appeal by the Children's Foundation about whether it is vicariously liable for the sexual abuses that its employee committed. The accused offender was employed by the non-profit organization. The Children's Foundation is appealing a ruling that held it vicariously responsible for its employees conduct, whether or not it was a non-profit organization.

: Bazley v. Curry; This case is an appeal by the Children's Foundation about whether it is vicariously liable for the sexual abuses that its employee committed. The accused offender was employed by the non-profit organization. The Children's Foundation is appealing a ruling that held it vicariously responsible for its employees conduct, whether or not it was a non-profit organization.

: Bear Island Foundation v. Ontario, [1996] 1 C.N.L.R. 41 (Ont. Gen. Div.); The Temagami Indians were not at the signing of the Robinson-Huron Treaty and no land was set aside for them. In 1883 the government began to pay annuities to the Band. The Band placed a caution over 4000 square miles of traditional territory. At issue is whether Aboriginal title been extinguished?

: Beattie v. Squamish Indian Band, [2005] 2 C.N.L.R. 11; Joyce Beattie lived on the Squamish reserve where she was taxed under a Band by-law made under s. 83 (of the Indian Act). She was a registered Indian, but not a member of the Band. She argued that, although she had possession of a house, she had no right to occupy the on which it stood. Therefore, she argued that she could not be taxed by the band." Summary courtesy of Shin Imai and Jennifer Sander, "The Annotated Indian Act and Aboriginal Constitutional Provisions " (Toronto: Thomson-Carswell, 2008)." Taxation, Band By-laws, Indian Act s. 83(1)(a), non-resident Indian, occupy, reserve

: Beattie v. Squamish Indian Band, [2005] 2 C.N.L.R. 11; Joyce Beattie lived on the Squamish reserve where she was taxed under a Band by-law made under s. 83 (of the Indian Act). She was a registered Indian, but not a member of the Band. She argued that, although she had possession of a house, she had no right to occupy the on which it stood. Therefore, she argued that she could not be taxed by the band.\" Summary courtesy of Shin Imai and Jennifer Sander, \"The Annotated Indian Act and Aboriginal Constitutional Provisions\" (Toronto: Thomson-Carswell, 2008)."

: Beattie v. Squamish Indian Band, [2005] 2 C.N.L.R. 11; Joyce Beattie lived on the Squamish reserve where she was taxed under a Band by-law made under s. 83 (of the Indian Act). She was a registered Indian, but not a member of the Band. She argued that, although she had possession of a house, she had no right to occupy the on which it stood. Therefore, she argued that she could not be taxed by the band.\" Summary courtesy of Shin Imai and Jennifer Sander, \"The Annotated Indian Act and Aboriginal Constitutional Provisions\" (Toronto: Thomson-Carswell, 2008)."

: Benoit v. Canada, [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 1 (F.C.T.D); Whether a Treaty promise not to pay taxes to the government of Canada during Treaty negotiations is recognized by the Crown.

: Benoit v. Canada, [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 1 (F.C.T.D); Whether a Treaty promise not to pay taxes to the government of Canada during Treaty negotiations is recognized by the Crown.

: Benoit v. Canada, [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 1 (F.C.T.D.); Whether a Treaty promise not to pay taxes to the Government of Canada during Treaty negotiations is recognized by the Crown.

: Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development); The Beaver Band surrendered its reserve land along with the mineral rights to the Crown. The Crown then transferred the land to the Director of the Veterans' Land Act (DVLA). The DVLA obtained the mineral rights \by inadvertence\" because they had not been reserved in the transfer from the Crown to the DVLA. The land was then sold to war veterans and oil and gas was later discovered. The band claimed damages against the Crown for allowing it to make an improvident surrender and for disposing of the land under value. The band also claimed damages against the Crown for permitting the transfer of the mineral rights to the DVLA and then to the veterans. This document is the factum of the Appellants."

: Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development); The Beaver Band surrendered its reserve land along with the mineral rights to the Crown. The Crown then transferred the land to the Director of the Veterans' Land Act (DVLA). The DVLA obtained the mineral rights \by inadvertence\" because they had not been reserved in the transfer from the Crown to the DVLA. The land was then sold to war veterans and oil and gas was later discovered. The band claimed damages against the Crown for allowing it to make an improvident surrender and for disposing of the land under value. The band also claimed damages against the Crown for permitting the transfer of the mineral rights to the DVLA and then to the veterans. This document is the factum of the Respondent."

: Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1996; The Beaver Band surrendered its reserve land along with the mineral rights to the Crown. The Crown then transferred the land to the Director of the Veterans' Land Act (DVLA). The DVLA obtained the mineral rights \by inadvertence\" because they had not been reserved in the transfer from the Crown to the DVLA. The land was then sold to war veterans and oil and gas was later discovered. The band claimed damages against the Crown for allowing it to make an improvident surrender and for disposing of the land under its true value. The band also claimed damages against the Crown for permitting the transfer of the mineral rights to the DVLA and then to the veterans. This document is the factum of the Intervener."