A-170-03
2004 FCA 16
Bertha L'Hirondelle, suing on her own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Sawridge Band (Plaintiffs) (Appellants)
v.
Her Majesty the Queen (Defendant) (Respondent)
and
Native Council of Canada, Native Council of Canada (Alberta), Native Women's Association of Canada and Non-Status Indian Association of Alberta (Interveners) (Respondents)
Indexed as: Sawridge Band v. Canada (F.C.A.)
Federal Court of Appeal, Rothstein, Noël and Malone JJ.A.--Calgary, December 15 and 16, 2003; Ottawa, January 19, 2004.
Native Peoples -- Registration -- Appellants opposing requirement to enter on Sawridge Band List names of 11 individuals, to accord them rights, privileges attaching to Band membership -- Bill C-31 granting certain persons whose names omitted, deleted from Indian Register prior to April 17, 1985 entitlement to status under Indian Act -- Indian Act, s. 10(4), (5) must be interpreted in accordance with modern approach -- Act, s. 11(1)(c) granting appellants automatic entitlement to membership in Sawridge Band -- Requiring such acquired rights individuals to comply with Sawridge Band membership code in contravention of Act.
Administrative Law -- Judicial Review -- Injunctions -- Trial Judge granting mandatory interlocutory injunction sought by Crown, requiring appellants to register names of 11 individuals on Sawridge Band List -- Making determination of law as condition precedent to granting of interlocutory injunction -- Such determination appropriate -- Where substantive question of law at issue, applicable standard of review correctness -- Three-part test for granting interlocutory injunction met -- First part, serious issue to be tried, applies to interlocutory injunction applications whether mandatory or prohibitory.
Constitutional Law -- Aboriginal and Treaty Rights -- Appellants submitting provisions of Bill C-31 conferring entitlement to Band membership inconsistent with Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35, therefore of no force, effect -- Legislation must be complied with until found to be unconstitutional -- Clear public interest in seeing legislation obeyed until application stayed by Court order, legislation set aside on final judgment.
Construction of Statutes -- Interpretation of Indian Act, s. 10(4), (5) -- All legislation must be read in context -- Trial Judge correctly interpreted s. 10(4), (5) in accordance with modern approach -- Act creating automatic entitlement to membership unless acquired rights individuals subsequently lose entitlement.
Practice -- Parties -- Standing -- Whether Crown lacked standing, has not met test for seeking interlocutory injunctive relief -- Crown having standing to seek injunctions to ensure public bodies, such as Indian band council, follow law.
This was an appeal from a Trial Judge's order granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction sought by the Crown, requiring the appellants to register the names of 11 individuals on the Sawridge Band List and to accord them all the rights and privileges attaching to Band membership. In an action commenced on January 15, 1986, the appellants sought a declaration that the provisions of Bill C-31(An Act to amend the Indian Act) that confer an entitlement to Band membership are inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and are therefore of no force and effect. Bill C-31 granted certain persons whose names were omitted or deleted from the Indian Register by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs prior to April 17, 1985, entitlement to status under the Indian Act. By notice of motion, the Crown applied for an interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring the Sawridge Band to comply with the provisions of the Act unless and until they are determined to be unconstitutional. By order dated March 27, 2003, Hugessen J. granted the requested injunction. In appealing the order of Hugessen J., the appellants raised two issues: (1) whether the Band's membership application process complied with the requirements of the Act, and (2) whether the Crown had standing and had met the test for granting interlocutory injunctive relief.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.
(1) The Crown's notice of motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was based on the appellants' refusal to comply with the legislation pending determination of whether the legislation was constitutional. It was agreed that the interpretation of the legislation and whether or not the appellants were in compliance with it was relevant to this litigation. Courts do not normally make determinations of law as a condition precedent to the granting of an interlocutory injunction, but that is what occurred here. It was appropriate for Hugessen J. to have made a preliminary determination of law that was final and conclusive for purposes of the action, subject to being varied on appeal.
Where a substantive question of law is at issue, even if it is decided by a case management judge, the applicable standard of review will be correctness. Hugessen J. was not satisfied that subsections 10(4) and (5) of the Indian Act are as clear and unambiguous as the appellants suggested. He correctly interpreted these provisions in accordance with the modern approach to statutory construction which states that the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. The term "acquired rights" which appears as a marginal note beside subsection 10(4) is a convenient "shorthand" to identify those individuals who, by reason of paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Act, became entitled to automatic membership in the Indian Band with which they were connected. The instant paragraph 11(1)(c) came into force, i.e. April 17, 1985, these individuals were entitled to have their names entered on the membership list of their Band. The words "by reason only of" in subsection 10(4) could allow a band to create restrictions on continued membership for situations that arose or actions taken after the membership code came into effect. However, the code cannot operate to deny membership to those individuals who come within paragraph 11(1)(c). There is no automatic membership in a band, but there is an automatic entitlement to membership. The words "commencing on April 17, 1985" only indicate that subsection 11(1) was not retroactive to before April 17, 1985. As of that date, the individuals in question acquired an automatic entitlement to membership in the Sawridge Band. For these persons entitled to membership, a simple request to be included in the Band's membership list is all that is required. The fact that the individuals in question did not complete a Sawridge Band membership application is irrelevant. Requiring acquired rights individuals to comply with the Sawridge Band membership code, in which preconditions had been created to membership, was in contravention of the Act.
(2) The Crown was seeking an injunction, not only on behalf of the individuals denied the benefits of a validly enacted legislation, but on behalf of the public interest in having the laws of Canada obeyed. It has traditionally had standing to seek injunctions to ensure that public bodies, such as an Indian band council, follow the law. Having regard to the Crown's standing at common law, statutory authority is unnecessary. Hugessen J. correctly found that the Crown had standing to seek the injunction. Moreover, the Crown was seeking essentially the same relief on the injunction application as in the main action. Further, section 44 of the Federal Courts Act confers a very broad jurisdiction on the Federal Court, even to granting an injunction where it is not being asked to grant final relief. That being so, the Court surely has jurisdiction to grant an injunction where it will itself make a final determination on an interconnected issue. The requested injunction was therefore sufficiently connected to the final relief claimed by the Crown.
The test for granting an interlocutory injunction, as adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd.; and RJR--MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), is threefold. First, there must be a serious question to be tried. Such test should be applied to an interlocutory injunction application, whether it is prohibitory or mandatory. The Crown's argument that Bill C-31 is constitutional was neither frivolous nor vexatious. There was, therefore, a serious question to be tried. Second, it must be determined whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the application were refused. Ordinarily the public interest would only be considered in the third branch of the test, but since the government was the applicant in this motion for interlocutory relief, the public interest had to be considered in the second stage as well. Allowing the appellants to ignore the requirements of the Act would irreparably harm the public interest in seeing that the law is obeyed. Until a law is struck down as unconstitutional or an interim constitutional exemption is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, citizens and organizations must obey it. Further the individuals who have been denied Band membership are aging and may never benefit from amendments adopted to redress their discriminatory exclusion. The public interest in preventing discrimination by public bodies will be irreparably harmed if the requested injunction is denied and the appellants are able to continue to ignore their obligations under Bill C-31, pending a determination of its constitutionality. The appellants argued that there could not be irreparable harm because the Crown would not have waited 16 years after the commencement of the action to seek an injunction. The question of whether delay in bringing an injunction application is fatal is a matter of discretion for the motions judge. There was no suggestion that Hugessen J. did not act judicially in the exercise of his discretion. The third branch of the test is the balance of convenience. In the Metropolitan Stores case, it was held that interlocutory injunctions should not be granted in public law cases, "unless, in the balance of convenience, the public interest is taken into consideration and given the weight it should carry". In this case, the public interest in seeing that laws are obeyed and that prior discrimination is remedied weighs in favour of granting the injunction requested by the Crown. There is a clear public interest in seeing that legislation is obeyed until its application is stayed by court order or the legislation is set aside on final judgment. On the other hand, the Sawridge Band will suffer little or no damage by admitting nine elderly ladies and one gentleman to membership. Therefore, the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
statutes and regulations judicially
considered
An Act to amend the Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 32.
| Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 15. |
| Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 35. |
| Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14), 44 (as am. idem, s. 41). |
| Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, rr. 220, 369. |
| Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5, ss. 6 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 32, s. 4), 10(4) (as am. idem), (5) (as am. idem), 11(1)(c) (as am. idem), 12. |
| Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, s. 14. |
cases judicially considered
applied:
Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; (1987), 38 D.L.R. (4th) 321; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 1; 46 Man. R. (2d) 241; 25 Admin. L.R. 20; 87 CLLC 14,015; 18 C.P.C. (2d) 273; 73 N.R. 341; RJR -- MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; (1994), 111 D.L.R. (4th) 385; 54 C.P.R. (3d) 114; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241.
considered:
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; (1998), 157 D.L.R. (4th) 385; 6 Admin. L.R. (3d) 1; 22 C.P.C. (4th) 1; 50 C.R.R. (2d) 189; 224 N.R. 241; Relais Nordik Inc. v. Secunda Marine Services Ltd. (1988), 24 F.T.R. 256 (F.C.T.D.); Ansa International Rent-a-Car (Canada) Ltd. v. American International Rent-a-Car Corp. (1990), 32 C.P.R. (3d) 340; 36 F.T.R. 98 (F.C.T.D.); Patriquen v. Canada (Correctional Services) (2003), 238 F.T.R. 153 (F.C.).
referred to:
Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346; (2001), 213 F.T.R. 57; 283 N.R. 107 (C.A.); Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; (1998), 36 O.R. (3d) 418; 154 D.L.R. (4th) 193; 50 C.B.R. (3d) 163; 33 C.C.E.L. (2d) 173; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario Teachers' Federation (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 367; 44 O.T.C. 274 (Gen. Div.); American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396 (H.L.); Breen v. Farlow, [1995] O.J. No. 2971 (Gen. Div.) (QL); 493680 Ontario Ltd. v. Morgan, [1996] O.J. No. 4776 (Gen. Div.) (QL); Samoila v. Prudential of America General Insurance Co. (Canada), [1999] O.J. No. 2317 (Sup. Ct.) (QL); Morgentaler et al. v. Ackroyd et al. (1983), 42 O.R. (2d) 659; 150 D.L.R. (3d) 59 (H.C.); Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., [2003] 2 F.C. 451; (2002), 22 C.P.R. (4th) 177; 297 N.R. 135 (C.A.).
authors cited
Driedger, Elmer A. Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983.
Sharpe, Robert J. Injunctions and Specific Performance, looseleaf ed., Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1998.
APPEAL from a Trial Division decision (Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2003] 4 F.C. 748; [2003] 3 C.N.L.R. 344; (2003), 232 F.T.R. 54) granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction sought by the Crown, requiring the appellants to enter on the Sawridge Band List the names of 11 individuals and to accord them all the rights and privileges attaching to Band membership. Appeal dismissed.
appearances:
Martin J. Henderson and Catherine M. Twinn for plaintiffs (appellants).
E. James Kindrake and Kathleen Kohlman for defendant (respondent).
Kenneth S. Purchase for intervener Native Council of Canada.
P. Jonathan Faulds, Q.C. for intervener Native Council of Canada (Alberta).
Mary Eberts for intervener Native Women's Association of Canada.
Michael J. Donaldson for intervener Non-Status Indian Association of Alberta.
solicitors of record:
Aird & Berlis LLP, Toronto and Twinn Barristers and Solicitors, Slave Lake, Alberta, for plaintiffs (appellants).
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for defendant (respondent).
Lang Michener LLP, Ottawa, for intervener Native Council of Canada.
Field LLP, Edmonton, for intervener Native Council of Canada (Alberta).
Eberts Symes Street Pinto & Jull, Toronto, for intervener Native Women's Association of Canada.
Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, Calgary, for intervener Non-Status Indian Association of Alberta.
The following are the reasons for judgment rendered in English by
[1]Rothstein J.A.: By order dated March 27, 2003 [[2003] 4 F.C. 748], Hugessen J. of the Trial Division (as it then was) granted a mandatory interlocutory injunction sought by the Crown, requiring the appellants to enter or register on the Sawridge Band List the names of 11 individuals who, he found, had acquired the right to be members of the Sawridge Band before it took control of its Band List on July 8, 1985, and to accord the 11 individuals all the rights and privileges attaching to Band membership. The appellants now appeal that order.
HISTORY
[2]The background to this appeal may be briefly stated. An Act to amend the Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, (1st Supp.), c. 32 (Bill C-31), was given Royal Assent on June 28, 1985. However, the relevant provisions of Bill C-31 were made retroactive to April 17, 1985, the date on which section 15, the equality guarantee, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44]] (the Charter) came into force.
[3]Among other things, Bill C-31 granted certain persons an entitlement to status under the Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 (the Act), and, arguably, entitlement to membership in an Indian Band. These persons included those whose names were omitted or deleted from the Indian Register by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs prior to April 17, 1985, in accordance with certain provisions of the Act as they read prior to that date. The disqualified persons included an Indian woman who married a man who was not registered as an Indian as well as certain other persons disqualified by provisions that Parliament considered to be discriminatory on account of gender. The former provisions read [section 12]:
12. (1) The following persons are not entitled to be registered, namely,
(a) a person who
. . .
(iii) is enfranchised, or
(iv) is born of a marriage entered into after September 4, 1951 and has attained the age of twenty-one years, whose mother and whose father's mother are not persons described in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b) or (d) or entitled to be registered by virtue of paragraph 11(1)(e),
unless, being a woman, that person is the wife or widow of a person described in section 11; and
(b) a woman who married a person who is not an Indian, unless that woman is subsequently the wife or widow of a person described in section 11.
(2) The addition to a Band List of the name of an illegitimate child described in paragraph 11(1)(e) may be protested at any time within twelve months after the addition, and if on the protest it is decided that the father of the child was not an Indian, the child is not entitled to be registered under that paragraph.
[4]Bill C-31 repealed these disqualifications and enacted the following provisions to allow those who had been stripped of their status to regain it [sections 6 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 32, s. 4), 11 (as am. idem)]:
6. (1) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if
. . .
(c) the name of that person was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register, or from a band list prior to September 4, 1951, under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iv), paragraph 12(1)(b) or subsection 12(2) or under subparagraph 12(1)(a)(iii) pursuant to an order made under subsection 109(2), as each provision read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as any of those provisions;
. . .
11. (1) Commencing on April 17, 1985, a person is entitled to have his name entered in a Band List maintained in the Department for a band if
. . .
(c) that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(c) and ceased to be a member of that band by reason of the circumstances set out in that paragraph;
[5]By an action originally commenced on January 15, 1986, the appellants claim a declaration that the provisions of Bill C-31 that confer an entitlement to Band membership are inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 [Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44]] and are, therefore, of no force and effect. The appellants say that an Indian Band's right to control its own membership is a constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty right and that legislation requiring a Band to admit persons to membership is therefore unconsti-tutional.
[6]This litigation is now in its 18th year. By notice of motion dated November 1, 2002, the Crown applied for:
. . . an interlocutory mandatory injunction, pending a final resolution of the Plaintiffs' action, requiring the Plaintiffs to enter or register on the Sawridge Band List the names of the individuals who acquired the right to be members of the Sawridge Band before it took control of its Band list, with the full rights and privileges enjoyed by all band members.
[7]The basis of the Crown's application was that until legislation is found to be unconstitutional, it must be complied with. The mandatory injunction application was brought to require the Band to comply with the provisions of the Act unless and until they are determined to be unconstitutional. By order dated March 27, 2003, Hugessen J. granted the requested injunction.
[8]This Court was advised that, in order for the Band to comply with the order of Hugessen J., the 11 individuals in question were entered on the Sawridge Band List. Nonetheless, the appellants submit that Hugessen J.'s order was made in error and should be quashed.
ISSUES
[9]In appealing the order of Hugessen J., the appellants raise the following issues:
1. Does the Band's membership application process comply with the requirements of the Act?
2. Even if the Band has not complied with the Act, did Hugessen J. err in granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction because the Crown lacks standing and has not met the test for granting interlocutory injunctive relief?
APPELLANTS' SUBMISSIONS
[10]The appellants say that the Band's membership code has been in effect since July 8, 1985 and that any person who wishes to become a member of the Band must apply for membership and satisfy the requirements of the membership code. They say that the 11 individuals in question have never applied for membership. As a result, there has been no refusal to admit them. The appellants submit that the code's requirement that all applicants for membership go through the application process is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Because the Band is complying with the Act, there is no basis for granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction.
[11]Even if the Band has not complied with the Act, the appellants say that Hugessen J. erred in granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction because the Crown has no standing to seek such an injunction. The appellants argue that there is no lis between the beneficiaries of the injunction and the appellants. The Crown has no interest or, at least, no sufficient legal interest in the remedy. Further, the Crown has not brought a proceeding seeking final relief of the nature sought in the mandatory interlocutory injunction application. In the absence of such a proceeding, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant a mandatory interlocutory injunction. Further, there is no statutory authority for the Crown to seek the relief in question. The appellants also argue that the Crown has not met the three-part test for the granting of an interlocutory injunction.
ARE THE APPELLANTS COMPLYING WITH THE INDIAN ACT?
| The Appropriateness of Deciding a Legal Question in the Course of an Interlocutory Injunction Application |
[12]The question of whether the Sawridge Band membership code and application process are in compliance with the Act appears to have been first raised by the appellants in response to the Crown's injunction application. Indeed, the appellants' fresh as amended statement of claim would seem to acknowledge that, at least when it was drafted, the appellants were of the view that certain individuals could be entitled to membership in an Indian Band without the consent of the Band. Paragraph 22 of the fresh as amended statement of claim states in part:
The plaintiffs state that with the enactment of the Amendments, Parliament attempted unilaterally to require the First Nations to admit certain persons to membership. The Amendments granted individual membership rights in each of the First Nations without their consent, and indeed over their objection.
[13]There is nothing in the appellants' fresh as amended statement of claim that would suggest that an issue in the litigation was whether the appellants were complying with the Act. The entire fresh as amended statement of claim appears to focus on challenging the constitutional validity of the Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian Act.
[14]The Crown's notice of motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was based on the appellants' refusal to comply with the legislation pending determination of whether the legislation was constitutional. The Crown's assumption appears to have been that there was no dispute that, barring a finding of unconstitutionality, the legislation required the appellants to admit the 11 individuals to membership.
[15]Be that as it may, the appellants say that the interpretation of the legislation and whether or not they are in compliance with it was always in contemplation in and relevant to this litigation. It was the appellants who raised the question of whether or not they were in compliance in response to the Crown's motion for injunction. It, therefore, had to be dealt with before the injunction application itself was addressed. The Crown and the interveners do not challenge the need to deal with the question and Hugessen J. certainly accepted that it was necessary to interpret the legislation and determine if the appellants were or were not in compliance with it.
[16]Courts do not normally make determinations of law as a condition precedent to the granting of an interlocutory injunction. However, that is what occurred here. In the unusual circumstances of this case, I think it was appropriate for Hugessen J. to have made such a determination.
[17]Although rule 220 [Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106] was not expressly invoked, I would analogize the actions of Hugessen J. to determining a preliminary question of law. Subsections 220(1) and (3) read as follows:
220. (1) A party may bring a motion before trial to request that the Court determine
(a) a question of law that may be relevant to an action;
. . .
(3) A determination of a question referred to in subsection (1) is final and conclusive for the purposes of the action, subject to being varied on appeal.
[18]Although the appellants did not explicitly bring a motion under rule 220, the need to determine the proper interpretation of the Act was implicit in their reply to the respondent's motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction. It would be illogical for the appellants to raise the issue in defence to the injunction application and the Court not be able to deal with it. There is no suggestion that the question could not be decided because of disputed facts or for any other reason. It was raised by the appellants who said it was relevant to the action. Therefore, I think that Hugessen J. was able to, and did, make a preliminary determination of law that was final and conclusive for purposes of the action, subject to being varied on appeal.
| Does the Band's Membership Application Process Comply with the Requirements of the Indian Act? |
[19]I turn to the question itself. Although the determination under appeal was made by a case management judge who must be given extremely wide latitude (see Sawridge Band v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 346 (C.A.), at paragraph 11), the determination is one of law. Where a substantive question of law is at issue, even if it is decided by a case management judge, the applicable standard of review will be correctness.
[20]The appellants say there is no automatic entitlement to membership and that the Band's membership code is a legitimate means of controlling its own membership. They rely on subsections 10(4) [as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 32, s. 4] and 10(5) [as am. idem] of the Indian Act which provide:
10. . . .
(4) Membership rules established by a band under this section may not deprive any person who had the right to have his name entered in the Band List for that band, immediately prior to the time the rules were established, of the right to have his name so entered by reason only of a situation that existed or an action that was taken before the rules came into force.
(5) For greater certainty, subsection (4) applies in respect of a person who was entitled to have his name entered in the Band List under paragraph 11(1)(c) immediately before the band assumed control of the Band List if that person does not subsequently cease to be entitled to have his name entered in the Band List.
[21]The appellants say that subsections 10(4) and (5) are clear and unambiguous and Hugessen J. was bound to apply these provisions. They submit the words "by reason only of" in subsection 10(4) mean that a band may establish membership rules as long as they do not expressly contravene any provisions of the Act. They assert that the Band's code does not do so. The code only requires that if an individual is not resident on the Reserve, an application must be made demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Band Council, that the individual:
. . . has applied for membership in the band and, in the judgment of the Band Council, has a significant commitment to, and knowledge of, the history, customs, traditions, culture and communal life of the Band and a character and lifestyle that would not cause his or her admission to membership in the Band to be detrimental to the future welfare or advancement of the Band (paragraph 3(a)(ii)).
[22]With respect to subsection 10(5), the appellants say that the words "if that person does not subsequently cease to be entitled to have his name entered in the Band List" mean that the Band is given a discretion to establish membership rules that may disentitle an individual to membership in the Band. They submit that nothing in the Act precludes a band from establishing additional qualifications for membership.
[23]The Crown, on the other hand, says that persons in the position of the individuals in this appeal have "acquired rights." I understand this argument to be that paragraph 11(1)(c) [as am. idem] created an automatic entitlement for those persons to membership in the Indian Band with which they were previously connected. The Crown submits that subsection 10(4) prohibits a band from using its membership rules to create barriers to membership for such persons.
[24]Hugessen J. was not satisfied that subsections 10(4) and (5) are as clear and unambiguous as the appellants suggest. He analyzed the provisions in the context of related provisions and agreed with the Crown.
[25]The appellants seem to object to Hugessen J.'s contextual approach to statutory interpretation. However, all legislation must be read in context. Driedger's [Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983, at page 87] well-known statement of the modern approach to statutory construction, adopted in countless cases such as Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at paragraph 21, reads:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Hugessen J. interpreted subsections 10(4) and (5) in accordance with the modern approach and he was correct to do so.
[26]I cannot improve on Hugessen J.'s statutory construction analysis and I quote the relevant portions of his reasons, which I endorse and adopt as my own [at paragraphs 24-27 and 36]:
It is unfortunate that the awkward wording of subsections 10(4) and 10(5) does not make it absolutely clear that they were intended to entitle acquired rights individuals to automatic membership, and that the Band is not permitted to create pre-conditions to membership, as it has done. The words "by reason only of" in subsection 10(4) do appear to suggest that a band might legitimately refuse membership to persons for reasons other than those contemplated by the provision. This reading of subsection 10(4), however, does not sit easily with the other provisions in the Act as well as clear statements made at the time regarding the amendments when they were enacted in 1985.
The meaning to be given to the word "entitled" as it is used by paragraph 6(1)(c) is clarified and extended by the definition of "member of a band" in section 2, which stipulates that a person who is entitled to have his name appear on a Band List is a member of the Band. Paragraph 11(1)(c) requires that, commencing on April 17, 1985, the date Bill C-31 took effect, a person was entitled to have his or her name entered in a Band List maintained by the Department of Indian Affairs for a band if, inter alia, that person was entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(c) of the 1985 Act and ceased to be a member of that band by reason of the circumstances set out in paragraph 6(1)(c).
While the Registrar is not obliged to enter the name of any person who does not apply therefor (see section 9(5)), that exemption is not extended to a band which has control of its list. However, the use of the imperative "shall" in section 8, makes it clear that the band is obliged to enter the names of all entitled persons on the list which it maintains. Accordingly, on July 8, 1985, the date the Sawridge Band obtained control of its List, it was obliged to enter thereon the names of the acquired rights women. When seen in this light, it becomes clear that the limitation on a band's powers contained in subsections 10(4) and 10(5) is simply a prohibition against legislating retrospectively: a band may not create barriers to membership for those persons who are by law already deemed to be members.
Although it deals specifically with Band Lists maintained in the Department, section 11 clearly distinguishes between automatic, or unconditional, entitlement to membership and conditional entitlement to membership. Subsection 11(1) provides for automatic entitlement to certain individuals as of the date the amendments came into force. Subsection 11(2), on the other hand, potentially leaves to the band's discretion the admission of the descendants of women who "married out."
. . .
Subsection 10(5) is further evidence of my conclusion that the Act creates an automatic entitlement to membership, since it states, by reference to paragraph 11(1)(c), that nothing can deprive acquired rights individuals [sic] to their automatic entitlement to membership unless they subsequently lose that entitlement. The Band's membership rules do not include specific provisions that describe the circumstances in which acquired rights individuals might subsequently lose their entitlement to membership. Enacting application requirements is certainly not enough to deprive acquired rights individuals of their automatic entitlement to band membership, pursuant to subsection 10(5). To put the matter another way, Parliament having spoken in terms of entitlement and acquired rights, it would take more specific provisions than what is found in section 3 of the membership rules for delegated and subordinate legislation to take away or deprive Charter protected persons of those rights.
[27]I turn to the appellants' arguments in this Court.
[28]The appellants assert that the description "acquired rights" used by Hugessen J. reads words into the Indian Act that are not there. The term "acquired rights" appears as a marginal note beside subsection 10(4). As such, it is not part of the enactment, but is inserted for convenience of reference only (Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, section 14). However, the term is a convenient "shorthand" to identify those individuals who, by reason of paragraph 11(1)(c), became entitled to automatic membership in the Indian Band with which they were connected. In other words, the instant paragraph 11(1)(c) came into force, i.e. April 17, 1985, these individuals were entitled to have their names entered on the membership list of their Band.
[29]The appellants say that the words "by reason only of" in subsection 10(4) do not preclude an Indian Band from establishing a membership code, requiring persons who wish to be considered for membership to make application to the Band. I acknowledge that the words "by reason only of" could allow a band to create restrictions on continued membership for situations that arose or actions taken after the membership code came into force. However, the code cannot operate to deny membership to those individuals who come within paragraph 11(1)(c).
[30]A band may enact membership rules applicable to all of its members. Yet subsections 10(4) and (5) restrict a band from enacting membership rules targeted only at individuals who, by reason of paragraph 11(1)(c), are entitled to membership. That distinction is not permitted by the Act.
[31]The appellants raise three further objections. First, they say that their membership code is required because of "band shopping." However, in respect of persons entitled to membership under paragraph 11(1)(c), the issue of band shopping does not arise. Under paragraph 11(1)(c), the individuals in question are only entitled to membership in the band in which they would have been a member but for the pre-April 17, 1985 provisions of the Indian Act. In this case, those individuals would have been members of the Sawridge Band.
[32]Second, the appellants submit that the opening words of subsection 11(1), "commencing on April 17, 1985," indicate a process and not an event, i.e. that there is no automatic membership in a band and that indeed some persons may not wish to be members; rather, the word "commencing" only means that a person may apply at any time on or after April 17, 1985. I agree that there is no automatic membership. However, there is an automatic entitlement to membership. The words "commencing on April 17, 1985" only indicate that subsection 11(1) was not retroactive to before April 17, 1985. As of that date, the individuals in question in this appeal acquired an automatic entitlement to membership in the Sawridge Band.
[33]Third, the appellants say that the individuals in question have not made application for membership. Hugessen J. dealt with this argument at paragraph 12 of his reasons:
Finally, the plaintiff argued strongly that the women in question have not applied for membership. This argument is a simple "red herring". It is quite true that only some of them have applied in accordance with the Band's membership rules, but that fact begs the question as to whether those rules can lawfully be used to deprive them of rights to which Parliament has declared them to be entitled. The evidence is clear that all of the women in question wanted and sought to become members of the Band and that they were refused at least implicitly because they did not or could not fulfil the rules' onerous application requirements.
[34]The appellants submit, contrary to Hugessen J.'s finding, that there was no evidence that the individuals in question here wanted to become members of the Sawridge Band. A review of the record demonstrates ample evidence to support Hugessen J.'s finding. For example, by Sawridge Band Council Resolution of July 21, 1988, the Band Council acknowledged that "at least 164 people had expressed an interest in writing in making application for membership in the Band." A list of such persons was attached to the Band Council Resolution. Of the 11 individuals in question here, 8 were included on that list. In addition, the record contains applications for Indian status and membership in the Sawridge Band made by a number of the individuals.
[35]For these persons entitled to membership, a simple request to be included in the Band's membership list is all that is required. The fact that the individuals in question did not complete a Sawridge Band membership application is irrelevant. As Hugessen J. found, requiring acquired rights individuals to comply with the Sawridge Band membership code, in which preconditions had been created to membership, was in contravention of the Act.
[36]Of course, this finding has no bearing on the main issue raised by the appellants in this action, namely, whether the provisions entitling persons to membership in an Indian band are unconstitutional.
THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Standing |
[37]I turn to the injunction application. The appellants say that there was no lis between the Band and the 11 persons ordered by Hugessen J. to be included in the Band's Membership List. The 11 individuals are not parties to the main action. The appellants also say that the Crown is not entitled to seek interlocutory relief when it does not seek the same final relief.
[38]I cannot accept the appellants' arguments. The Crown is the respondent in an application to have validly enacted legislation struck down on constitutional grounds. It is seeking an injunction, not only on behalf of the individuals denied the benefits of that legislation but on behalf of the public interest in having the laws of Canada obeyed. The Crown, as represented by the Attorney General, has traditionally had standing to seek injunctions to ensure that public bodies, such as an Indian band council, follow the law (see Robert J. Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance, looseleaf (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1998), at paragraph 3.30; Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario Teachers' Federation (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 367 (Gen. Div.), at pages 371-372). Having regard to the Crown's standing at common law, statutory authority, contrary to the appellants' submission, is unnecessary. Hugessen J. was thus correct to find that the Crown had standing to seek the injunction.
[39]I also cannot accept the argument that the Crown may not seek interlocutory relief because it has not sought the same final relief in this action. The Crown is defending an attack on the constitutionality of Bill C-31 and is seeking an interlocutory injunction to require compliance with it in the interim. If the Crown is successful in the main action, the result will be that the Sawridge Band will have to enter or register on its membership list the individuals who are the subject of the injunction application. The Crown therefore is seeking essentially the same relief on the injunction application as in the main action.
[40]Further, section 44 [as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 41] of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 1 (as am. idem, s. 14), confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court to grant an injunction "in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so." The jurisdiction conferred by section 44 is extremely broad. In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626, the Supreme Court found that the Federal Court could grant injunctive relief even though there was no action pending before the Court as to the final resolution of the claim in issue. If section 44 confers jurisdiction on the Court to grant an injunction where it is not being asked to grant final relief, the Court surely has jurisdiction to grant an injunction where it will itself make a final determination on an interconnected issue. The requested injunction is therefore sufficiently connected to the final relief claimed by the Crown.
| The Test for Granting an Interlocutory Injunction |
[41]The test for whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted was set out in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396 (H.L.) and adopted by the Supreme Court in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; and RJR--MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, where, at page 334, Sopinka and Cory JJ. summarized the test as follows:
First, a preliminary assessment must be made of the merits of the case to ensure that there is a serious question to be tried. Secondly, it must be determined whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the application were refused. Finally, an assessment must be made as to which of the parties would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the remedy pending a decision on the merits.
[42]The appellants submit that Hugessen J. erred in applying a reverse onus to the test. Since, as will be discussed below, the Crown has satisfied the traditional test, I do not need to consider whether the onus should be reversed.
| Serious Question |
[43]In RJR--MacDonald, supra, at pages 337-338, the Court indicated that the threshold at the first branch is low and that the motions judge should proceed to the rest of the test unless the application is vexatious or frivolous.
[44]The appellants say that in cases where a mandatory injunction is sought, the older pre-American Cyanamid test of showing a strong prima facie case for trial should continue to apply. They rely on an Ontario case, Breen v. Farlow, [1995] O.J. No. 2971 (Gen. Div.) (QL), in support of this proposition. Of course, that case is not binding on this Court. Furthermore, it has been questioned by subsequent Ontario decisions in which orders in the nature of a mandatory interlocutory injunction were issued (493680 Ontario Ltd. v. Morgan, [1996] O.J. No. 4776 (Gen. Div.) (QL); Samoila v. Prudential of America General Insurance Co. (Canada), [1999] O.J. No. 2317 (Sup. Ct.) (QL)). In Morgan, Hockin J. stated that RJR--MacDonald had modified the old test, even for mandatory interlocutory injunctions (paragraph 27).
[45]The jurisprudence of the Federal Court on this issue in recent years is divided. In Relais Nordik Inc. v. Secunda Marine Services Ltd. (1988), 24 F.T.R. 256 (F.C.T.D.), at page 9, Pinard J. questioned the applicability of the American Cyanamid test to mandatory interlocutory injunctions. On the other hand, in Ansa International Rent-a-Car (Canada) Ltd. v. American International Rent-a-Car Corp. (1990), 32 C.P.R. (3d) 340 (F.C.T.D.), at paragraph 15, MacKay J. accepted that the American Cyanamid test applied to mandatory injunctions in the same way as to prohibitory ones. Both of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court reaffirmed its approval of the American Cyanamid test in RJR--MacDonald. More recently, in Patriquen v. Canada (Correctional Services) (2003), 238 F.T.R. 153 (F.C.), at paragraphs 9-16, Blais J. followed the RJR--MacDonald test and found that there was a serious issue to be tried in an application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction (which he dismissed on the basis that the applicant had not shown irreparable harm).
[46]Hugessen J. followed Ansa International, supra, and held that the RJR--MacDonald test should be applied to an interlocutory injunction application, whether it is prohibitory or mandatory. In light of Sopinka and Cory JJ.'s caution about the difficulties of engaging in an extensive analysis of the constitutionality of legislation at an interlocutory stage (RJR--MacDonald, at page 337), I think he was correct to do so. However, the fact that the Crown is asking the Court to require the appellants' to take positive action will have to be considered in assessing the balance of convenience.
[47]In this case, the Crown's argument that Bill C-31 is constitutional is neither frivolous nor vexatious. There is, therefore, a serious question to be tried.
| Irreparable Harm |
[48]Ordinarily, the public interest is considered only in the third branch of the test. However, where, as here, the government is the applicant in a motion for interlocutory relief, the public interest must also be considered in the second stage (RJR--MacDonald, supra, at page 349).
[49]Validly enacted legislation is assumed to be in the public interest. Courts are not to investigate whether the legislation actually has such an effect (RJR-- MacDonald, at pages 348-349).
[50]Allowing the appellants to ignore the requirements of the Act would irreparably harm the public interest in seeing that the law is obeyed. Until a law is struck down as unconstitutional or an interim constitutional exemption is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, citizens and organizations must obey it (Metropolitan Stores, supra, at page 143, quoting Morgentaler et al. v. Ackroyd et al. (1983), 42 O.R. (2d) 659 (H.C.), at pages 666-668).
[51]Further, the individuals who have been denied membership in the appellant Band are aging and, at the present rate of progress, some are unlikely ever to benefit from amendments that were adopted to redress their discriminatory exclusion from Band membership. The public interest in preventing discrimination by public bodies will be irreparably harmed if the requested injunction is denied and the appellants are able to continue to ignore their obligations under Bill C-31, pending a determination of its constitutionality.
[52]The appellants argue that there cannot be irreparable harm because, if there was, the Crown would not have waited 16 years after the commencement of the action to seek an injunction. The Crown submits that it explained to Hugessen J. the reasons for the delay and stated that the very length of the proceedings had in fact contributed to the irreparable harm as the individuals in question were growing older and, in some cases, falling ill.
[53]The question of whether delay in bringing an injunction application is fatal is a matter of discretion for the motions judge. There is no indication that Hugessen J. did not act judicially in exercising his discretion to grant the injunction despite the timing of the motion.
| Balance of Convenience |
[54]In Metropolitan Stores, supra, at page 149, Beetz J. held that interlocutory injunctions should not be granted in public law cases, "unless, in the balance of convenience, the public interest is taken into consideration and given the weight it should carry." In this case, the public interest in seeing that laws are obeyed and that prior discrimination is remedied weighs in favour of granting the injunction requested by the Crown.
[55]As discussed above and as Hugessen J. found, there is a clear public interest in seeing that legislation is obeyed until its application is stayed by court order or the legislation is set aside on final judgment. As well, Bill C-31 was designed to remedy the historic discrimination against Indian women and other Indians previously excluded from status under the Indian Act and Band membership. There is therefore a public interest in seeing that the individuals in this case are able to reap the benefits of those amendments.
[56]On the other hand, the Sawridge Band will suffer little or no damage by admitting nine elderly ladies and one gentleman to membership (the Court was advised that one of the 11 individuals had recently died). It is true that the Band is being asked to take the positive step of adding these individuals to its Band List but it is difficult to find hardship in requiring a public body to follow a law that, pending an ultimate determination of its constitutionality, is currently in force. Even if the Band provides the individuals with financial assistance on the basis of their membership, that harm can be remedied by damages against the Crown if the appellants subsequently succeed at trial. Therefore, as Hugessen J. found, the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
CONCLUSION
[57]The appeal should be dismissed.
COSTS
[58]The Crown has sought costs in this Court and in the Court below. The interveners have sought costs in this Court only.
[59]In his reasons for order, Hugessen J. reserved the question of costs in favour of the Crown, indicating that the Crown should proceed by way of a motion for costs under rule 369 [Federal Court Rules, 1998]. He awarded no costs to the interveners. It is not apparent from the record that the Crown made a costs motion under rule 369 and in the absence of an order for costs and an appeal of that order, I would not make any award of costs in the Court below.
[60]As to costs in this Court, the Crown and interveners are to make submissions in writing, each not exceeding three pages, double-spaced, on or before seven days from the date of these reasons. The appellants shall make submissions in writing, not exceeding 10 pages, double-spaced, on or before 14 days from the date of these reasons. The Court will, if requested, consider the award of a lump sum of costs inclusive of fees, disbursements, and in the case of the interveners, GST (see Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., [2003] 2 F.C. 451 (C.A.)).
[61]The judgment of the Court will be issued as soon as the matter of costs is determined.
Noël J.A.: I agree.
Malone J.A.: I agree.