Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: St. Mary’s Indian Band v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 282 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1996] 2 C.N.L.R.; The Respondents operate an airport on the Appellant's reserve land. The appellants issued notice of taxation pursuant to the Indian Act s.87, but the city of Cranbrook never paid the taxes owed to the Appellants.

: St. Mary’s Indian Band v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 282 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1996] 2 C.N.L.R.; The Respondents operate an airport on the appellant's reserve land. The appellants issued notice of taxation pursuant to the Indian Act s.87, but the city of Cranbrook never paid the taxes owed to the Appellants.

: St. Mary’s Indian Band v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 282 (S.C.C.), aff’g [1996] 2 C.N.L.R.; The respondents operate an airport on the appellant's reserve land. The appellants issued notice of taxation pursuant to the Indian Act s.87, but the city of Cranbrook never paid the taxes owed to the appellants.

: Starlight v. Onespot; The Appellant seeks to have an injunction lifted that was found to be defamatory against the Respondent. The Appellant has said that he would continue to make similar statements during a band election if the injunction is lifted.

: Starlight v. Onespot; The Plaintiff claims that he was defamed in a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The defendant claims that the statements were true and privileged information. The plaintiff had sought an interim injunction to stop the defendant from repeating the allegations.

: Stoney Creek Indian Band v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 345 (B.C.C.A.); The lower court decision that rejected Alcan's claim that the Limitations Act barred an action by the Plaintiffs. Lower court ruled that the Limitations Act was constitutionally inapplicable to the Plaintiffs and their reserve.

: Stoney Creek Indian Band v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 345 (B.C.C.A.), rev’g [1999]; The lower court decision that rejected Alcan\\'s claim that the Limitations Act barred an action by the Plaintiffs. Lower court ruled that the Limitations Act was constitutionally inapplicable to the Plaintiffs and their reserve.

: Stoney Creek Indian Band v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 345 (B.C.C.A.), rev’g [1999]; Does the Limitations Act bar an action by the Plaintiffs? Whether the Limitations Act is constitutionally applicable to the Plaintiffs and their reserve.

: Stoney Creek Indian Band v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., [2000] 2 C.N.L.R. 345 (B.C.C.A.), rev’g [1999] 1 C.; This case considers the applicability of the Limitations Act and to Indians and Indian Lands. The Band claims damages against Alcan for a road it built on Reserve lands.

: Stoney Tribal Council v. PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 347 (Alta. C.A.); This case deals with determining whether there is an appropriate limitation period of First Nation interest in royalties from oil extracted from their land.

: Stoney Tribal Council v. PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd., [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 347 (Alta. C.A.); This case deals with determining whether there is an appropriate limitation period of First Nation interest in royalties from oil extracted from their land.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312 (B.C.C.A.); Redfern resources Ltd. planned to re-open a mine. With the re-opening of the mine Redfern wanted to build a road that went through traditional territory of the Tlingit people. The land was not under treaty, but was under treaty negotiations. The Tlingit people were never consulted and it is argued that is a violation of fiduciary responsibility that is owed by law to First Nations peoples.