Wewayakum Indian Band v. Can. (2003), 309 N.R. 201 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. SE.032
Roy Anthony Roberts, C. Aubrey Roberts and John Henderson, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Wewaykum Indian Band (also known as the Campbell River Indian Band) (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Ralph Dick, Daniel Billy, Elmer Dick, Stephen Assu and James D. Wilson, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Wewaikai Indian Band (also known as the Cape Mudge Indian Band) (respondents/appellants)
Ralph Dick, Daniel Billy, Elmer Dick, Stephen Assu, Godfrey Price, Allen Chickite and Lloyd Chickite, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Wewaikai Indian Band (also known as the Cape Mudge Indian Band) (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of British Columbia, Gitanmaax Indian Band, Kispiox Indian Band and Glen Vowell Indian Band (interveners)
(27641; 2003 SCC 45; 2003 CSC 45)
Indexed As: Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
September 26, 2003.
Summary:
The Wewaykum or Campbell River Indian Band and the Wewaikai or Cape Mudge Indian Band claimed that the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, 297 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 79, with reasons written by Justice Binnie, was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias and should be set aside. The Indian Bands alleged that a reasonable apprehension of bias arose from Binnie, J.’s, involvement in this matter in his capacity as federal Associate Deputy Minister of Justice over 15 years prior to the hearing of the bands’ appeals by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motions to set aside the impugned judgment.
Courts – Topic 676
Judges – Disqualification – General – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the importance of the principle of impartiality – The court reviewed when a judge would be disqualified for a reasonable apprehension of bias – The court also discussed the notion of automatic disqualification for reasonable apprehension of bias which had been recently revisited by the English courts – See paragraphs 62 to 73.
Courts – Topic 687
Judges – Disqualification – Bias – Appeal court judge (incl. Supreme Court of Canada justice) – The Wewaykum or Campbell River Indian Band and the Wewaikai or Cape Mudge Indian Band claimed that the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, 297 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 79, with reasons written by Justice Binnie, was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias and should be set aside – The alleged reasonable apprehension of bias allegedly arose from Binnie, J.’s, involvement in this matter in his capacity as federal Associate Deputy Minister of Justice over 15 years prior to the hearing of the bands’ appeals by the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motions to set aside the impugned judgment – The court held that no reasonable apprehension was established – Binnie, J.’s, involvement was confined to a limited supervisory and administrative role, over 15 years earlier – Binnie, J., had no recollection of any involvement in the litigation – A reasonable person could not conclude that Binnie, J., was suffering from a conscious or unconscious bias when he heard these appeals.
Courts – Topic 689
Judges – Disqualification – Bias – Arising out of participation in prior proceedings – [See
Courts – Topic 687
].
Courts – Topic 691
Judges – Disqualification – Bias – Reasonable apprehension of bias – [See
Courts – Topic 676
and
Courts – Topic 687
].
Cases Noticed:
Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; [1985] 1 C.N.L.R. 120; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 48].
Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 52].
Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].
R. v. Bertram, [1989] O.J. No. 2123 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 10 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 58].
Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Gough (R.B.), [1993] A.C. 646; 155 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].
R. v. Barnsley Licencing Justices; Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association, [1960] 2 Q.B. 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].
R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].
Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (Proprietors of) (1852), 3 H.L.C. 759; 10 E.R. 301, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), [1999] 2 W.L.R. 272 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 70].
Man O’War Station Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [2002] 3 N.Z.L.R. 577, refd to. [para. 77].
Panton v. Minister of Finance, [2001] 5 L.R.C. 132 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 87].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Canadian Judicial Council, Ethical Principles for Judges (1998), p. 30 [para. 59].
Wilson, Bertha, Decision-making in the Supreme Court (1986), 36 U.T.L.J. 227, generally [para. 92].
Counsel:
Michael P. Carroll, Q.C., and Malcolm Maclean, for the appellants, Roy Anthony Roberts et al.;
John D. McAlpine, Q.C., and Allan Donovan, for the respondents/appellants, Ralph Dick et al.;
J. Vincent O’Donnell, Q.C., and Jean Bélanger, for the respondent, Her Majesty The Queen;
Patrick G. Foy, Q.C., and Angus M. Gunn, Jr. (written submissions only), for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia;
Peter Grant and David Schulze (written submissions only), for the interveners, the Gitanmaax Indian Band, Kispiox Indian Band and Glen Vowell Indian Band.
Solicitors of Record:
Davis & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant, Roy Anthony Roberts et al.;
McAlpine & Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents/appellants, Ralph Dick et al.;
Richards Buell Sutton, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Her Majesty The Queen;
Borden Ladner Gervais, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;
Hutchins, Soroka & Grant, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the interveners, the Gitanmaax Indian Band, the Kispiox Indian Band and the Glen Vowell Indian Band.
These motions were heard on June 23, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judges together released the following reasons for judgment, in both official languages on September 26, 2003.
