Bird v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 70

By services, 26 March, 2025
Is tax content
Not tax content (predicted)
Citation
Citation name
2025 FCA 70
Decision date
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
952277
Extra import data
{
"field_court_parentheses": "",
"field_external_guid": [
"url::decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521591/index"
],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "",
"field_import_body_hash": "17b8938be24add89cd34bfac4dd39f27743f7467e20b439535cd41fcd3acdc14",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": {
"url": "https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521591/index.do",
"title": "",
"attributes": [],
"original_title": "",
"original_url": "https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521591/index.do"
}
}
Style of cause
Bird v. Canada (Attorney General)
Main text

Date: 20250325


Docket: A-270-24

Citation: 2025 FCA 70

CORAM:

LASKIN J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

PAMEL J.A.

BETWEEN:

LAURA BIRD AND LLOYD YEW

Appellants

and

CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) AND CANOE LAKE CREE FIRST NATION

Respondents

Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on March 25, 2025.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on March 25, 2025.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

ROUSSEL J.A.


Date: 20250325


Docket: A-270-24

Citation: 2025 FCA 70

CORAM:

LASKIN J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

PAMEL J.A.

BETWEEN:

LAURA BIRD AND LLOYD YEW

Appellants

and

CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) AND CANOE LAKE CREE FIRST NATION

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on March 25, 2025).

ROUSSEL J.A.

[1] The appellants appeal a decision of the Federal Court (2024 FC 1204) dated July 29, 2024, dismissing their application for judicial review. The appellants challenge the Canoe Lake Cree First Nation Citizenship Law on the basis that it violates equality rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11. On appeal, they argue, amongst other things, that the Federal Court erred in finding that the matter could not be brought by application for judicial review in the absence of an underlying administrative decision being challenged.

[2] Leaving aside the fact that this issue does not appear to have been properly raised with the parties, we agree with the appellants and the respondent Canoe Lake Cree First Nation that the Federal Court erred in its determination of this issue. Consequently, the appeal will be allowed, the judgment of the Federal Court will be set aside, and the matter will be returned to the Federal Court for determination on all remaining issues. In the circumstances, there will be no order for costs.

"Sylvie E. Roussel"

J.A.


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


DOCKET:

A-270-24

STYLE OF CAUSE:

LAURA BIRD AND LLOYD YEW v. CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) AND CANOE LAKE CREE FIRST NATION

PLACE OF HEARING:

SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN

DATE OF HEARING:

March 25, 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:

LASKIN J.A.

ROUSSEL J.A.

PAMEL J.A.

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:

ROUSSEL J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Sonia Eggerman

Michael W. Marschal

Brian Wirachowksy

For The Appellants

LAURA BIRD AND LLOYD YEW

William F. Kuchapski

Evan Morrow

For The Respondent

CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)

Evan Duffy

For The Respondent

CANOE LAKE CREE FIRST NATION

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MLT Aikins LLP

Regina, Saskatchewan

For The Appellants

LAURA BIRD AND LLOYD YEW

Shalene Curtis-Micallef

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For The Respondent

CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)

Bailey, Wadden & Duffy LLP

Edmonton, Alberta

For The Respondent

CANOE LAKE CREE FIRST NATION

Docket
A-270-24