Federal court | Aboriginal Peoples
LAND CLAIMS
Applicant did not have recognizable interest in lands
Chief and council passed motion that three lots were reserved for community BNF initiatives and two lots were available for housing development. Chief and council passed second motion to approve realignment of entrance to road. Applicant claimed to have interest in lots road passed over. Applicant claimed construction of homes and community centre would affect ancestral burial mounds that applicant cared for. Applicant argued decisions were made without satisfying requirements for procedural fairness because decisions were made without notice or regard to applicant’s interests. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant did not have right or interest in property. Applicant did not have recognizable interest in lands over and above applicant’s interest as band member. Applicant did not establish applicant was adversely affected by development. Decisions did not impinge on applicant’s residence at lighthouse. Applicant had actual notice of council meetings where two motions were passed. Applicant was personally aware of plan of survey and opportunity to make views known. There was no specific dispute between applicant and any other party. Applicant did not establish reasonable apprehension of bias or any conflict of interest. Applicant did not show motions in any way benefitted or could be perceived to benefit chief and councillor.
Sayers v. Batchewana First Nation (Jul. 29, 2013, F.C., Donald J. Rennie J., File No. T-1112-12, T-1120-12) 230 A.C.W.S. (3d) 622.
Applicant did not have recognizable interest in lands
Chief and council passed motion that three lots were reserved for community BNF initiatives and two lots were available for housing development. Chief and council passed second motion to approve realignment of entrance to road. Applicant claimed to have interest in lots road passed over. Applicant claimed construction of homes and community centre would affect ancestral burial mounds that applicant cared for. Applicant argued decisions were made without satisfying requirements for procedural fairness because decisions were made without notice or regard to applicant’s interests. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant did not have right or interest in property. Applicant did not have recognizable interest in lands over and above applicant’s interest as band member. Applicant did not establish applicant was adversely affected by development. Decisions did not impinge on applicant’s residence at lighthouse. Applicant had actual notice of council meetings where two motions were passed. Applicant was personally aware of plan of survey and opportunity to make views known. There was no specific dispute between applicant and any other party. Applicant did not establish reasonable apprehension of bias or any conflict of interest. Applicant did not show motions in any way benefitted or could be perceived to benefit chief and councillor.
Sayers v. Batchewana First Nation (Jul. 29, 2013, F.C., Donald J. Rennie J., File No. T-1112-12, T-1120-12) 230 A.C.W.S. (3d) 622.
