Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 (Descendents of) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] 2 C.N.L.R. 295; The Papaschase Band brought an action against the Government of Canada for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent and malicious behaviour and treaty breach dating to 1886 under Treaty 6. The Crown sought to have the action dismissed based on the Limitations of Actions Act, R.S.A., 1980, c. L-15, s.4. The Crown was successful in having the case dismissed; overturning the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling, thus restoring the Chamber's judge decision despite over having completed the discovery process. No constitutional question was submitted in this case. See companion facta #536 and #537.

: Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 (Descendents of) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] 2 C.N.L.R. 295; The Papaschase Band brought an action against the Government of Canada for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent and malicious behaviour and treaty breach dating to 1886 under Treaty 6. The Crown sought to have the action dismissed based on the Limitations of Actions Act, R.S.A., 1980, c. L-15, s.4. The Crown was successful in having the case dismissed; overturning the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling, thus restoring the Chamber's judge decision despite never having completed the discovery process. No constitutional question was submitted in this case.Note: See the companion facta in #529 and #530.

: Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 (Descendents of) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2008] 2 C.N.L.R. 295; The Papaschase Band brought an action against the Government of Canada for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent and malicious behaviour and treaty breach dating to 1886 under Treaty 6. The Crown sought to have the action dismissed based on the Limitations of Actions Act, R.S.A., 1980, c. L-15, s.4. The Crown was successful in having the case dismissed; overturning the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling, thus restoring the Chamber's judge decision despite never having completed the discovery process. No constitutional question was submitted in this case. Note: See the companion facta in #529 #530 and #536.

: Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 4 C.N.L.R. 110; In this case, despite the clear and bone fide existence of fraud by the Crown, the Government of Canada sought to have the claim by the Papaschase Band struck on the basis of limitations and no cause of action. No Notice of Constitutional Question was filed by the Band.

: Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 4 C.N.L.R. 110; In this case, despite the clear and bone fide existence of fraud by the Crown, the Government of Canada sought to have the claim by the Papaschase Band struck on the basis of limitations and no cause of action. No Notice of Constitutional Question was filed by the Band.

: Perry v. Ontario, [1998] 2 C.N.L.R. 79 (Ont. C.A.), rev’g [1996] 2 C.N.L.R. 167 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Perry, a non-status Indian, was charged with hunting and fishing offences. He challenged the constitutionality of those charges under s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the ground that Ontario's \Interim Enforcement Policy\" discriminated against non-status Indians. The charges against Perry were withdrawn and the trial judge allowed the action to continue on the constitutional issues. Perry and others sought an Order requiring Ontario to enter into consultation with the Applicants and also requiring Ontario to negotiate with the applicants in order to clarify and give effect to their rights under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Trial Judge found in their favour and made these orders. Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Trial Judge. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused."

: Quebec (A.G.) v. Cree Regional Authority, [1991] 3 C.N.L.R. 82 (F.C.A.),; Whether a license granted by the National Energy board may be issued without applying the justification test from R. v. Sparrow regarding the infringement of Aboriginal rights.

: Québec (Sous-Ministre du Revenu) c. Sioui, [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 88 (Que. C.A.), aff’g [1996] 1 C.N.L.R.; The applicant is a Huron Indian of the reserve Indian of Lorette which exerts a building material trade in the reserve. The Defendant refuses to give sale tax to the government of Quebec. The Defendant sites protections under the Treaty of 1760. (Please note that this pleading is in French.)_x000D_ Le demandeur est un Indien d'Huron de l'Indien de réservation de Lorette qui exerce des échanges de matériau de construction de la réservation. Le défendeur refuse de donner le taxe de vente au gouvernement du Québec. Le défendeur situe des protections aux termes du Traité de 1760. (Veuillez noter que ce qui parle en faveur est en français.)

: Québec (Sous-Ministre du Revenu) c. Sioui, [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 88 (Que. C.A.), aff’g [1996] 1 C.N.L.R.; The Applicant is a Huron Indian. Lorette undertakes a building material trade in the reserve. The Defendant refuses to give sale tax to the government of Quebec. The defendant sites protections under the Treaty of 1760. (Please note that this pleading is in French.) Le demandeur est un Indien d'Huron de l'Indien de réservation de Lorette qui exerce des échanges de matériau de construction de la réservation. Le défendeur refuse de donner le taxe de vente au gouvernement du Québec. Le défendeur situe des protections aux termes du Traité de 1760. (Veuillez noter que ce qui parle en faveur est en français.) The exact date of this submission is not known).

: Québec (Sous-Ministre du Revenu) c. Sioui, [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 88 (Que. C.A.), aff’g [1996] 1 C.N.L.R.; The Applicant is a Huron Indian. Lorette undertakes a building material trade in the reserve. The Defendant refuses to give sale tax to the government of Quebec. The defendant sites protections under the Treaty of 1760. (Please note that this pleading is in French.) Le demandeur est un Indien d'Huron de l'Indien de réservation de Lorette qui exerce des échanges de matériau de construction de la réservation. Le défendeur refuse de donner le taxe de vente au gouvernement du Québec. Le défendeur situe des protections aux termes du Traité de 1760. (Veuillez noter que ce qui parle en faveur est en français.) The exact date of this submission is not known).

: R. v. Adams, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 1 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 3 C.N.L.R. 98 (Que. C.A.), which aff’d [1985; \Appellant disputes the position of Respondent and Intervener in relation to the issues raised by them in their Facta respecting historical occupation of land, the criteria for Indian title, the effect of the French regime, granted or recognized rights, the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 on aboriginal rights, an independent aboriginal right to fish, the interpretation of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (hereafter s. 35) and the answer to the constitutional question in these proceedings.\" "

: R. v. Adams, [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 1 (S.C.C.), rev’g [1993] 3 C.N.L.R. 98 (Que. C.A.), which aff’d [1985; \Appellant disputes the position of Respondent and Intervener in relation to the issues raised by them in their facta respecting historical occupation of land, the criteria for Indian title, the effect of the French regime, granted or recognized rights, the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 on aboriginal rights, an independent aboriginal right to fish, the interpretation of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (hereafter s. 35) and the answer to the constitutional question in these proceedings.\" "