,
Date: 20030320
Docket: T-33-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 335
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 20T" DAY OF MARCH 2003 PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
JAMES GABRIEL
Applicant
-and -
MOHAWK COUNCIL OF KANESATAKE and STEVEN BONSPILLE
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER and ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] Some time ago, the respondents, at the regular weekly motions day in Montreal which I was presiding, moved the Court, pursuant to Rule 399 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the "Rules") to set aside the ex parte order of Justice Tremblay-Lamer dated May 9, 2002, which ordered the respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt on a number of grounds including breach of her interlocutory injunction dated April 29, 2002, ordering that the respondent Council reinstate James Gabriel as Grand Chief of Mohawk Council of Kanesatake (the "Mohawk Council").
[2] I took the matter under reserve, expressed the hope that the issue could be settled and offered my informal assistance.
[3] Efforts did not produce any result and indeed the Mohawk Council is still bitterly divided as is evidenced by the several proceedings in this Court.
[4] Ultimately, in my view, it is the members of Mohawk Nation of Kanesatake who are the losers in these disputes.
[5] I see no useful purpose in continuing to hold this matter in reserve.
[6] I raised at the hearing whether this motion should be heard by Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer rather than by me. Counsel for the applicant supported counsel for the respondents that the matter was properly before me. He cited the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corporation, [1987] 3 F.C. 654 ("CUPS').
[7] I disagree. The Federal Court of Appeal in Indian Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v. Lo et al. (1997) 215 N.R. 76, stated that "the authorities are clear, that save in exceptional circumstances, an ex parte order is to be reviewed, varied or rescinded by the judge who makes it."
[8] In my view, the majority judgment in COPE, supra, applied the exceptional circumstance test but should I be wrong, I prefer Justice Marceau's minority holding which is consistent with Indian Manufacturing, supra, decided after COPE.
[9] Neither party has persuaded me that exceptional circumstances exist here which would make inapplicable the general principle. Some of those exceptional circumstances relate to the exigencies of court administration as well as the illness or incapacity of the authorizing judge. None apply here.
ORDER
This application to set aside Justice Tremblay-Lamer's order of May 9, 2002, is dismissed without costs.
"François Lemieux"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-33-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: James Gabriel v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake and Steven Bonspille
PLACE OF HEARING : Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 19, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER OF the Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
DATED: March 20, 2003
APPEARANCES: Mr. Peter Annis
FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Tina Hobday
FOR RESPONDENTS
Mr. Martin Mason
FOR RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP FOR APPLICANT
Ottawa, Ontario
Langlois Gaudreau
Montréal, Quebec FOR RESPONDENTS