Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

22.01.2015 Views

Page: 304 indicium of its existence...It is, in fact, the “golden thread” that unites such related causes of action as breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, unconscionability and negligent misrepresentation”. The Court identified relevant indicators for finding the existence of a fiduciary relationship such as the availability for the unilateral exercise of some discretion or power. [1152] However, I am unable to conclude that the Defendant was acting in a fiduciary relationship 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) in her dealings with the Plaintiffs regarding the supply of timber for the Watson Lake mill. [1153] The legal test is clear, that fiduciary must act in the interests of the beneficiary to the exclusion of its own interests. That obligation cannot be imposed on the Defendant on the facts of this case. The Defendant is mandated to manage the forest resources for the benefit of many, not only for the Plaintiffs. [1154] The Plaintiffs do not claim that they had an exclusive right to an adequate timber supply; their claim is quite specific and limited to a supply of 200,000 m 3 per year. The requirement that a fiduciary must act for the benefit of the Plaintiffs would create a conflict with the discharge of the Defendant’s public law duties in general, an issue that was addressed by Mr. Justice Rothstein (as he then was) in Fairford First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 2 F.C. 48 (T.D.), at para. 67, as follows: It would place the government in a conflict between its responsibility to act in the public interest and its fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Indian band to the exclusion of other interests. In the absence of legislative or constitutional provisions to the contrary, the law of fiduciary duties, in the Aboriginal context, cannot be interpreted to

Page: 305 place the Crown in the untenable position of having to forego its public law duties when such duties conflict with Indian interests. [1155] While Fairford First Nation dealt with an analysis of fiduciary duty in an aboriginal context, this is a correct statement of the law when dealing with the Crown as a fiduciary in general; see Harris v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 484 (T.D.). 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [1156] In the circumstances of this case and in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Galambos v. Perez, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 247, concerning the essential requirements to ground a fiduciary relationship, I conclude that no such relationship arose between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant upon the facts of this case. This cause of action is dismissed. 5. Misfeasance in Public Office [1157] As a further and final alternative, the Plaintiffs plead misfeasance in public office, specifically in respect of certain promises made by Ms. Guscott, then the DIAND Director Renewable Resources to Allied Resources Ltd. The claim is set out in paras. 31 to 32 as follows: 31. Between March of 1997 and August 2001, DIAND, through its’ employee and agent Jennifer Guscott, the Director of Renewable Resources, Yukon Region, and in her capacity as a public official of the Defendant, exercised her authority and powers as a public official for the improper and malicious purpose and intent of causing harm and damage to the Plaintiffs by promising timber harvesting rights in the Watson Lake area to third parties to wit, Allied Resources Ltd., for the purpose of enticing Allied Resources Ltd. to establish a sawmill in the Watson Lake area when she knew that there was insufficient timber available to fulfil the assurances, representations, commitments and promises the Defendant had made to the Plaintiffs, and for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of timber harvesting rights or timber contrary to the assurances, representations, commitments and promises aforesaid made to the Plaintiffs, and

Page: 305<br />

place the Crown in the untenable position of having to forego its<br />

public law duties when such duties conflict with Indian interests.<br />

[1155] While Fairford First Nation dealt with an analysis of fiduciary duty in an aboriginal context,<br />

this is a correct statement of the law when dealing with the Crown as a fiduciary in general; see<br />

Harris v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 484 (T.D.).<br />

2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />

[1156] In the circumstances of this case and in light of the recent decision of the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> of<br />

Canada in Galambos v. Perez, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 247, concerning the essential requirements to<br />

ground a fiduciary relationship, I conclude that no such relationship arose between the Plaintiffs and<br />

the Defendant upon the facts of this case. This cause of action is dismissed.<br />

5. Misfeasance in Public Office<br />

[1157] As a further and final alternative, the Plaintiffs plead misfeasance in public office,<br />

specifically in respect of certain promises made by Ms. Guscott, then the DIAND Director<br />

Renewable Resources to Allied Resources Ltd. The claim is set out in paras. 31 to 32 as follows:<br />

31. Between March of 1997 and August 2001, DIAND, through its’<br />

employee and agent Jennifer Guscott, the Director of Renewable<br />

Resources, Yukon Region, and in her capacity as a public official of<br />

the Defendant, exercised her authority and powers as a public official<br />

for the improper and malicious purpose and intent of causing harm<br />

and damage to the Plaintiffs by promising timber harvesting rights in<br />

the Watson Lake area to third parties to wit, Allied Resources Ltd.,<br />

for the purpose of enticing Allied Resources Ltd. to establish a<br />

sawmill in the Watson Lake area when she knew that there was<br />

insufficient timber available to fulfil the assurances, representations,<br />

commitments and promises the Defendant had made to the Plaintiffs,<br />

and for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of timber harvesting<br />

rights or timber contrary to the assurances, representations,<br />

commitments and promises aforesaid made to the Plaintiffs, and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!