BRIEF SUMMARY OF Eric Shirt et al. v.

Saddle Lake Cree Nation, 2017 FC 364

Prepared by the Election 2016 Judicial Review Group

June 2016, the Applicants requested resolution internally but our attempts were ignored and/or
denied.

Elder Jerry Houle, Elder's Council Board Member 2016 at the time, made a request to Elder's
Committee to assist in resolution, prior to the election but the request was denied; therefore, the
Applicants wrote a letter to Chief and Council but this letter was ignored; therefore, became part of
the court hearing. As it was known the Appeals Committee was not appointed through Band Council
Resolution (BCR), Band Council Motion, or through Band Membership Consent and it was apparent
they were unable to be fair, unbiased or impartial; as a result, the Applicants were required to look for
other options for resolution and/or justice.

There was no Justice System, Tribal Justice or Impartial Unbiased Committee group to assist in
resolving disputes, thus, the next option was court as stated in Indian Affairs letter to Saddle Lake
Cree Nation when election issues occur (even though this is their created Indian Act process).

Therefore, with the guidance of other legal and governance advisors, we found all resolution options
exhausted and made a decision to request an outside neutral body to assist as this was clearly an
Indian Act made election system since the amendment of the Indian Act in the 1950s requiring
Election Codes be made with the assistance of their templates.

Keep in mind, the Illegal Indian Pass and Permit System was being implemented and Indian Agent
had all powers / authority of reserves under the Indian Act System at the time. Furthermore, anyone
who opposed INAC or the Indian Agent could be removed from the Band List at the Indian Agent's
discretion or hold your Food Rations etc..any means to maintain control and submission of the people
on reserves. So how much authority did our ancestors have?

Provided by Priscilla Kennedy, Applicants Legal Council:

4 candidates for office challenged their removal from the List of Candidates.

The issues were procedural fairness and whether the Election Committee was properly appointed
and whether it had any authority.

The Standard of Review by the Federal Court is correctness.

Para. 40 - The Band does not have a generally accepted custom supported by a majority
of members.
Para. 45 - The appointment of the Election Committee was invalid.
Para. 67 - No need to review on the Charter because the procedure was procedurally unfair.
Observes that preventing nomination for election based on marital status alone would
seem to be a discriminatory practice and unconstitutional.
Para. 72 - the decision to remove the four from the list of candidates is quashed
(overturned). Their eligibility has to be properly determined by the Electoral Officer and if any
are deemed eligible, then new election must be held. Para. 76 if new election, required
then Election Regulations must be followed.
ADDITIONAL / EXPANDED SUMMARY:

Saddle Lake Cree Nation Election Code Docket: T-978-16

 -2-

Both parties, Applicants and SLCN all agreed under the current SLCN "Election Regulations", there is
no "appointment [for] an Election Committee or how criteria of how they operate" (under Paragraph
34, Judge agrees committee is not custom or adopted through an Election Act). Neither is there a
provision for the roles and responsibilities of an electoral officer. The parties further agree that the
band election customs have never been passed by a Band Council Resolution (BCR) or a majority of
the members.

The STANDARD OF REVIEW for the Courts looked at "procedural fairness and constitution of
the election committee will be reviewed on a correctness standard as laws, jurisdiction and
procedural fairness are in question.

JUDGEMENT: The Court's Judgement is that:

1) The application is granted:
* There was enough evidence to move forward in court to determine if SLCN's decision to remove
each of the Applicants' from the nomination for Chief and Council, the points of issues to be
determined were:

A) Were the decisions of the election committee procedurally fair?

B) Was the election committee properly appointed and did it have authority to make nomination
eligibility decisions?
C) Were the decisions of the election committee reasonable?

The decision of the committee to remove the nominees from the Nomination list is quashed;
* the decision of the committee to remove the nominees from the Nomination list is "Quashed" (to say
officially that something, especially an earlier official decision, is no longer to be accepted)

2) The candidates removed must be subject to a new process to determine their eligibility and if any
are found eligible, a new election must be held;
* The candidates removed must be subject to a new process (new election process) - Re-election to
happen & even if one is STILL eligible, under the new process (new nominations), for nomination,
then a new election - either way, a new election process to happen. The court also outlines that a
new process must be procedurally fair, be inline and respect the Constitution and Charter of Rights,
including respect constitutional respect of past Supreme Court of Canada decisions like Corbiere v
Canada (INAC) 1999 other cases affecting election processes. (See Paragraph 76: a New Election
Process must be supported by the majority of band members... be procedurally fair including a
transparent process known to ALL MEMBERS. If a nominee is protested they must be notified and
given opportunity to respond)

This showed, the applicants were removed unfairly and there must be a fair nomination and
election process established.

Links for more information:

Federal Court Decision on CANLII Website: http://canlii.ca/t/h375j

Information & Updates Webpage: http://colonialindianact.blogspot.ca
Information & Updates Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/IndianActisTribalCustoms

Saddle Lake Cree Nation Election Code Docket: T-978-16