Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band, [2000] 1 C.N.L.R. 21 (F.C.A.), aff’g [1997] 2 C.N.L.R.; The Matsqui Indian Band opposes the assumption by Canadian Pacific Ltd. that a right of way access has resulted in the surrender of reserve land to the railway.

: Chadee v. Norway House First Nation, [1997] 2 C.N.L.R. 48 (Man. C.A.); Mr. Chadee was dismissed by the Norway House First Nation without cause. The First Nation argued that it was acting as an agent for the Crown and could dismiss Mr. Chadee without cause.

: Chef Robert Kanatewat et al., c. La Societe Development De La Baie James et al.; This is an action initiated by the Plaintiffs for an injunction against the development of James Bay. It is contended that Bill 50, passed by the Quebec government is unconstitutional and that the James Bay Development will permanently affect the traditional way of life of the First Nations and Inuit in the territory. (This factum is in French. C'est une action intiated par les plaignants pour une injonction contre le développement du compartiment de James. On l'affirme que la facture 50, passée par le gouvernement du Québec est inconstitutionnelle, et que le développement de compartiment de James avec de manière permanente affectent la façon de vivre traditionnelle des premiers nations et Inuit dans le territoire. (ce factum est en français.)

: Chem-Security Ltd. v. Alberta (Environmental Appeal Board) (1998), 216 A.R. 184 (Alta. C.A.); Chem-Security was granted approval to expand its hazardous waste disposal facility in the face of protests of a neighbouring First Nation. The First Nation filed a notice of objection with the Environmental Appeal Board and a hearing was held. The Board denied the Band's request to adduce new evidence and respond to certain submissions made by Chem-Security. The court determined that the decision of the Board to refuse to hear the response and to refuse to allow the band to adduce new evidence was a breach of natural justice. This document is the main factum of the Appellant Chem-Security Ltd. The supplementary factum of the appellant Chem-Security Ltd. is factum Id # 361. See the main legal pleadings page to bring up the factum Id #.

: Chem-Security Ltd. v. Alberta (Environmental Appeal Board) (1998), 216 A.R. 184 (Alta. C.A.); Chem-Security was granted approval to expand its hazardous waste disposal facility in the face of protests of a neighbouring First Nation. The First Nation filed a notice of objection with the Environmental Appeal Board and a hearing was held. The Board denied the band's request to adduce new evidence and respond to certain submissions made by Chem-Security. The court determined that the decision of the Board to refuse to hear the response and to refuse to allow the band to adduce new evidence was a breach of natural justice. This document is the supplementary factum of the appellant Chem-Security Ltd. The main factum of the appellant Chem-Security Ltd. is factum Id # 360. See the main legal pleadings page to bring up the factum Id #.

: Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia, [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 10 (B.C.C.A.);; The Crown alleges that no infringement has occurred against the Cheslatta aboriginal right to fish.

: Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia, [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 10 (B.C.C.A.); application for leave; The Crown alleges that no infringement has occurred against the Cheslatta aboriginal right to fish. Further, the Crown also asserts that the grounds for Appeal are based on a misinterpretation of the lower court.

: Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.); The Chippewas are arguing that a patent to land was achieved through fraud and bribery. It is claimed that the surrender was invalid and therefore is still reserve land.

: Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.); The Chippewas are arguing that a patent to land was achieved through fraud and bribery. It is claimed that the surrender was invalid and therefore is still reserve land.

: Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.); The Chippewas are arguing that a patent to land was achieved through fraud and bribery. It is claimed that the surrender was invalid and therefore is still reserve land.

: Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.), aff; The Chippewas make a claim that even though they may have surrendered the land in question they still retained aboriginal rights to the land.

: Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.), aff; The Chippewas make a claim that even though they may have surrendered the land in question they still retained aboriginal rights to the land.