Stoney Band v. Canada ( Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs )
T-307-96
Hargrave P.
16/5/97
11 pp.
Motion for stay of action under Federal Court Act, s. 50.1 based on Crown's intention to bring third party proceedings against parties over whom Federal Court alleged to lack jurisdiction-Allegations by plaintiffs against Crown including mismanagement of forested areas, breach of various duties, responsibilities, obligations, wrongfully using funds belonging to Stoney Band for remedial measures and conflict of interest-Crown wishing to bring third party proceedings against Stoney Band council, various Band members-Third party notices filed against Band members, log brokers, mill operators over whom Crown submits Court has no jurisdiction-Essential requirements to support Federal Court jurisdiction set out in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752-Crown submitted no existing body of federal law to nourish statutory grant of jurisdiction-Present case more than just trespass to Reserve-Causes of action including conversion, conspiracy, negligence-Reliance upon Indian Act, Indian Timber Regulations, also upon provincial legislation-That third party claims rely in part on federal law, provincial legislation not necessarily bar to jurisdiction-To be otherwise claim must be in pith and substance within Court's jurisdiction, validly founded on federal law-Three general areas causing jurisdictional concern in context of need for body of federal law, as law on which case based must be law of Canada: (1) conversion of Crown's timber, (2) breach of duty of care to Minister, parallel interference with Crown's obligation to hold timber for use and benefit of Stoney Band, and (3) reliance on provincial contributory negligence legislation-In present case, many of Crown's allegations against third parties firmly grounded in Indian Act, Indian Timber Regulations-Reliance on provincial tort law governing conversion not fatal given existing fairly detailed statutory framework-Third party claims brought under Federal Court Act, s. 17(5)(a) wellgrounded in federal legislation, being in essence claims founded on Indian Act, Indian Timber Regulations-Based substantially on Federal Aboriginal common law-Requirements set out in Miida Electronics, that there be existing body of federal law essential to decide case and that law on which case based be law of Canada, met-Valid foundation in federal Canadian law for claims which are in pith and substance within Court's jurisdiction-Motion dismissed-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 17(5)(a), 50.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 16)-Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5-Indian Timber Regulations, C.R.C., c. 961.