2014 QCCA 1245, 2014 QCCA 1245

Unofficial English Translation Québec (Procureur général) (Ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec et du Ministre délégué aux Affaires autochtones du Québec) c. Alliance autochtone du Québec 2014 QCCA 1245 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF QUEBEC No.: 200-09-008129-139 (200-17-011000-098) DATE: June 16, 2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, acting on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife of Quebec and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of Quebec APPELLANT – Respondent and NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QUEBEC APPELLANT – Mise en cause v.

NATIVE ALLIANCE OF QUEBEC, NICHOLAS SHATTLER, RICHARD SHATTLER, CHURCHILL BOLAND, JULES ST-GELAIS, CHRISTIAN TREMBLAY, HENRICO LAPOINTE, JIMMY TREMBLAY, DAVID BÉCHAMP and RHÉAL PAUL RESPONDENTS – Petitioners and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, acting on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians Impleaded third party – Respondent JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellants, the Attorney General of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec, appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, District of Quebec (the Honourable Mr.

Justice Bernard Godbout), rendered on July 18, 2013, dismissing their motion to dismiss dated July 15, 2011. [1] [ 2 ] This motion sought the dismissal of the respondents' amended motion for declaratory judgment dated February 18, 2011. [ 3 ] This appeal was heard in conjunction with an appeal brought by the Attorney General of Canada (docket 200-09-008126-135).

This other appeal was allowed, on this day, the Court finding that the motion for declinatory exception presented by the Attorney General of Canada should have been granted, without deciding the merits of its motion to dismiss. [ 4 ] At paragraphs 28 to 36, and paragraph 44 of his judgment, the trial judge made the following remarks regarding the motions to dismiss: [ translation ] [28] Despite the abundant case law submitted by both parties, it must be borne in mind that the AGC and the AGQ have brought their motion to dismiss under article 165(4) C.C.P ., which reads as follows: The defendant may ask for the dismissal of the action if: ... 4.

The suit is unfounded in law, even if the facts alleged are true.

[29] Concerning this

article of the Code of Civil Procedure , the AGQ points out that, in Giroux v. Hydro Québec , the Court of Appeal stated that: [65] A motion to dismiss under article 165(4) C.C.P. will be granted only if the judge is convinced that the action is unfounded in law, even if all the alleged facts are true. The judge must exercise caution and must refrain from terminating a trial prematurely unless he or she is convinced of the merits of the motion. However, like André Rochon J., I do not believe that this rule of caution should cause us to lose sight of the basic principle of

article 165 C.C.P . The fact that a situation is complex or that a question of law presents difficulties is not a reason to refer it to the trial judge for consideration. The judge before whom a motion to dismiss is brought must decide, regardless of the difficulty. [30] The legal situation must also be clear and easily defined, as the Court of Appeal stated in Avis Canada inc. v. Condoroussis : First, the facts cannot be simpler, but especially, and this is where the error lies, the legal situation is clear and easily defined, as it was put in the precedent on which the trial judge relied.

Perhaps the question raised by this clear and easily defined legal situation cannot be resolved [TRANSLATION] "without discussion or serious examination", but that is not sufficient justification to refer it to the trial judge. The judge before whom a motion to dismiss is brought who is faced with a pure point of law must rule on this point, regardless of the difficulty. [31] In the present case, the applicants base their motion for declaratory judgment on, inter alia, articles 33 and 453 C.C.P ., which state: 33.

Excepting the Court of Appeal, the courts within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Québec, and bodies politic, legal persons established in the public interest or for a private interest within Québec are subject to the superintending and reforming power of the Superior Court in such manner and form as by law provided, save in matters declared by law to be of the exclusive competency of such courts or of any one of the latter, and save in cases where the jurisdiction resulting from this

article is excluded by some provision of a general or special law. 453 Any person who has an interest in having determined, for the resolution of a genuine problem, either his or her status or any right, power or obligation the person may have under a contract, a will or any other written instrument, a statute, an order in council, or a by- law or resolution of a municipality, may, by way of a motion to institute proceedings, ask for a declaratory judgment in that regard. [32] The facts alleged in the motion for declaratory judgment which, at the stage of the motion to dismiss, must be taken as proven, are not in themselves very complex. [33] The resulting legal situation for the applicants, however, and the issues they raise are far from being [TRANSLATION] "clear and easily defined". [34] On the contrary, the legal issues that are raised by the motion for declaratory judgment and that motivate the declaratory conclusions sought by the applicants must be argued in a context other than a motion to dismiss and in light of the facts that will then have to be proven. [35] It is not sufficient to dispose of the dispute to say that each of the conclusions of the motion for declaratory judgment is inadmissible if it is not accepted that the applicants individually and the members of the NAQ are aboriginal persons and that the NAQ forms an aboriginal community. [36] The latter assertion already raises a number of issues, including that of the very status of the applicants. ... [44] Finally, despite the criminal proceedings before the Court of Quebec, nothing prevents the applicants and more specifically the NAQ from applying to the Superior Court to argue the questions of law raised by the motion for declaratory judgment.

These questions, which directly concern the applicants' status, have a much broader scope than those raised in the context of a criminal defence could have. [ 5 ] The Court finds that the judge acted correctly and that his refusal to grant the motions to dismiss of the Attorney General of Quebec and the National Assembly was well reasoned. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. JACQUES CHAMBERLAND, J.A. BENOÎT MORIN, J.A. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. Mtre Frédéric Maheux Chamberland, Gagnon (Justice – Québec) For the appellants

Mtre Marc Watters Mtre Lina Beaulieu Gagné Letarte For the respondents Mtre Bernard Letarte Joyal, LeBlanc For the impleaded third party Date of hearing: May 16, 2014