Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: Repap Manitoba Inc. v. Mathias Colomb Indian Band, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 176 (Man. C.A.); Did the learned Trial Judge make an error of law issuing restraining orders to First Nations members,except for Mathias Colomb Band, from interfering with Repap's logging operations, which are allegedly not on First Nation's land?

: Repap Manitoba Inc. v. Mathias Colomb Indian Band, [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 176 (Man. C.A.); Did the learned Trial Judge make an error of law issuing restraining orders to First Nations members,except for Mathias Colomb Band, from interfering with Repap's logging operations, which are allegedly not on First Nation's land.

: Roberts v. Canada, [1989] 2 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.); Question as to whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to rule on a dispute between two bands over the same reserve land. They key question here was whether the law of Aboriginal title is a \law of Canada\" for the purposes of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Thus, this is purely a procedural matter. The decision on the merits of the case was delivered by the Supreme Court in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2003] 1 C.N.L.R. 141 (S.C.C.). The facta for the decision on the merits are factum ID numbers 487 to 498. This document is the Factum of the Appellants."

: Roberts v. Canada, [1989] 2 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.); Question as to whether the Federal Court was had the jurisdiction to rule on a dispute between two bands over the same reserve land. They key question here was whether the law of Aboriginal title is a \law of Canada\" for the purposes of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Thus, this is purely a procedural matter. The decision on the merits of the case was delivered by the Supreme Court in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2003] 1 C.N.L.R. 141 (S.C.C.). The factums for the decision on the merits are factum ID numbers 487 to 498. This document is the Factum of the Respondents Roy Anthony Roberts et. al."

: Roberts v. Canada, [1989] 2 C.N.L.R. 146 (S.C.C.); Question as to whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to rule on a dispute between two bands over the same reserve land. They key question here was whether the law of Aboriginal title is a \law of Canada\" for the purposes of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Thus, this is purely a procedural matter. The decision on the merits of the case was delivered by the Supreme Court in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2003] 1 C.N.L.R. 141 (S.C.C.). The facta for the decision on the merits are factum ID numbers 487 to 498. This document is the Factum of the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada."

: Ross River Dena Council Band v. Canada, [2002] 3 C.N.L.R. 229 (S.C.C.), aff’g [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 293; At issue is whether legal title to Ross River was vested in the Crown or was that the land set aside for the Ross River Dena Indian Band as reserve land.

: Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [1998] 2 C.N.L.R. 199 (F.C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 180; The Samson Indian band seeks damages for the Crown mishandling trust funds that were entrusted to the government on fiduciary basis.

: Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [1998] 2 C.N.L.R. 199 (F.C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 180; Canada is attempting to have financial records produced by the Samson Indian Band to substantiate alleged financial mismanagement.

: Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [1998] 2 C.N.L.R. 199 (F.C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 180; Crown is appealing a decision that dismissed an application by the Crown for the Band to produce additional documents relative to the Band\\'s investment decisions.

: Samson Indian Nation and Band v. Canada, [1998] 2 C.N.L.R. 199 (F.C.A.), aff’g [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 180; Canada is attempting to have financial records produced by the Samson Indian Band to substantiate alleged financial mismanagement.

: Sawridge Band v. Canada; Appeal to the Federal Court on the grounds of bias by the Judge. The issue of control of Band membership is the basis of the case. The Band alleges a conflict arises between the Indian Act and sec. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Band argued that reinstating C-31 women was a violation of its control of membership.

: Sawridge Band v. Canada, [1995] 4 C.N.L.R. 121 (F.C.T.D.); Appeal to the Federal Court on the grounds of bias by the Judge. The issue of control of Band membership is the basis of the case. The Band alleges a conflict arises between the Indian Act and sec. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Band argued that reinstating C-31 women was a violation of its control of membership.