British Columbia Native Women's Society v. Canada
T-491-97
Wetston J.
30/1/98
7 pp.
Motion to join applicants as defendants-Statement of claim alleging breach of fiduciary obligations to all Indians, violation of Charter, s. 15 by (i) failing to change land title system governed by Indian Act to provide for process protecting married Indian women who live on reserves with regard to division, occupancy of matrimonial home should marriages end; (ii) negotiating, implementing Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management, without including matrimonial property protection for married Indian women on reserves-Applicants arguing should be joined as defendants as their rights, interests as signatories to Agreement will be directly affected by outcome of action-To determine whether party should be added to existing action, Court should consider whether any of claims advanced against existing defendant could stand alone against proposed defendant, being properly within Court's jurisdiction to review-If none of existing claims can stand alone against proposed party, proposed party cannot be added to action: Desbiens v. The Queen, [1974] 2 F.C. 20 (T.D.); Waterside Cargo Co-operative v. National Harbours Board (1979), 107 D.L.R. (3d) 576 (F.C.T.D.); Dene Nation v. The Queen, [1983] 1 F.C. 146 (T.D.)-This approach construed as "additional test" to be used to determine whether party should be added in joinder cases-Analysis merely answers first of three-part test to determine whether Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear matter, enunciated by Supreme Court of Canada in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752-Two other requirements: must be existing body of federal law essential to disposition of case and nourishing statutory grant of jurisdiction; case must be based on law of Canada as phrase used in Constitution Act, 1867, s. 101-No claim identified upon which action could be based between plaintiffs, applicants-Neither dispute as to land between parties nor suggestion applicants acting as defendant's agents-Plaintiffs' claims made strictly against Her Majesty-While applicants clearly having substantial interest in claims, nothing upon which to found action between them-Applicants submitting Federal Court Act, s. 17(4) providing Court with jurisdiction to add them as defendants to action under R. 1716(2)(b)-S. 17(4) providing Court with concurrent original jurisdiction to determine disputes where Crown may be under obligation, in respect of which there are, or may be conflicting claims, eg. interpleader proceedings, or cases where action existing between two parties in respect of which Crown holding property-With no identifiable claim, can be no "proceeding"-Addition of applicants to action as intervenors raised during hearing, but applicants indicating did not wish to be added as intervenors-Contended Court could not order that they be added as intervenors without their consent: Chitty v. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, [1978] 1 F.C. 830 (T.D.)-Motion dismissed-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 17(4) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 3)-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1716(2)(b)-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, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.) (as am. by Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, Item 1) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 5], s. 101.