Métis Nation—Saskatchewan v Morin

Background

The issue before the Court arises from political and legal battles within Métis Nation—Saskatchewan (MN-S). These struggles pit two groups of MN-S members against one another. Robert Doucette and Gerald Morin lead rival groups which have sought to control the MN-S through political and judicial means. Doucette is the president of MN-S. Morin and his supporters are members of the MN-S Provincial Métis Council (PMC). The judge refers to these groups as the “Doucette faction” and the “Morin faction” respectively.

In April 2013 the Morin faction asked Doucette to call a meeting of the Provincial Métis Council (PMC) in order to review the organization’s finances. Doucette refused this request, asserting that only the Executive could set the date and agenda of PMC meetings.

The Morin faction was concerned that the Executive, controlled by Doucette, had sole authority over the scheduling of PMC meetings and financial decision-making. In response, the Morin faction called a board of directors meeting and passed resolutions in an attempt to wrest control of MN-S’s finances from the Executive. The Morin faction also sought an injunction that would require banks to honour the changes to MN-S’s financial structure. The request for an injunction was denied on June 28, 2013 by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench.

The Doucette faction called a meeting of the Métis Nation Legislative Assembly (MNLA) in September 2013. During this MNLA, members of the Morin faction were suspended from the PMC. The Morin faction challenged the legality of this assembly and the suspensions. On March 20, 2014 the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that the assembly was improperly held. The memberships of the Morin faction were restored.

On November 1st, 2014 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) cut off all funding to MN-S because of the organization’s failure to hold legislative assemblies as required by the MN-S constitution. The two feuding factions could not agree on a date to schedule an MNLA in order to restore funding. Doucette then turned to the courts in order to have an assembly mandated. On December 22, 2014, at the request of Doucette, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench ordered that a PMC meeting be held in order to schedule an MNLA. In January, the PMC scheduled an MNLA for September 11 to 13, 2015.

The Doucette faction was concerned that the MNLA was not scheduled at an early enough date. Holding the MNLA was seen as essential to the restoration of AANDC funding to the MN-S. Accordingly, Doucette returned to court seeking an earlier date for the MNLA. On April 6th, 2015 the judge ordered, among other things, that “[t]he PMC shall schedule and give appropriate notice for an MNLA which shall take place on or before June 19, 2015”. This order is at issue in the current trial.

Plaintiff’s request

The MNLA ordered by the judge on April 6th did not take place by the required date. The plaintiff Doucette requested that the judge find members of the Morin faction in contempt of court for failing to abide by the Court’s order of April 6th, 2015. Doucette argued that the defendants had full knowledge of the court order and chose not to comply.

Contempt of court principles

The judge described the law of contempt as essential to rule of law in Canada. Open defiance of a court order is detrimental to the stability of the judicial system. In order for contempt of court to be proven a number of criteria must be met. The order given by the court must be clear and unambiguous. The parties must have received notice of the order. There must be clear proof that the parties disobeyed the order. Finally, contempt of court must be deliberate or reckless. The onus was on Doucette as the moving party to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants acted in contempt of court.

Position of the defendants

According to the defendants, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they recklessly or deliberately contravened the Court’s order. The defendants argued that their efforts to secure funding for the MNLA were frustrated by Doucette. The defendants contend that Doucette rendered compliance with the order impossible. Some defendants advanced individual reasons for their non-compliance with the order such as health reasons. The judge decided to focus on the defendants as a collective and disregarded individual explanations.

Court’s decision

In coming to his decision, the judge considered whether attempts at compliance with the court order were frustrated by the Doucette faction and whether other external factors rendered compliance impossible. The judge expressed a broad range of concerns regarding actions taken by Doucette in relation to the Court’s order of April 6th. These included concerns that Doucette refused to meet with the Morin faction in order to schedule the MNLA and failed to attend MNLA finance meetings. The judge was also concerned that Doucette had failed to attend two funded meetings with the Métis National Council which could have been used to help plan the MNLA.

The judge also examined actions taken by the defendants which were aimed at compliance. It was found that the defendants made prompt efforts to comply with the court order. The Morin faction held meetings shortly after the court order in order to plan the MNLA and seek funding. Morin and his supporters also travelled to Métis National Council meetings in order to plan the required MNLA. These initial efforts by the defendants were viewed by the judge as proactive measures aimed at compliance.

The onus was on Doucette, representing the MN-S as the plaintiff in this matter, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants acted in contempt of court. The Court found that Doucette did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants deliberately or recklessly ignored the Court’s order. Significant concerns regarding Doucette’s actions factored into this analysis. Furthermore, the defendants’ attempts to secure funding and schedule preliminary meetings were seen by the judge as sincere attempts to comply with the court order.

Taken together, the actions of the plaintiff and defendants convinced the judge that the Morin faction was not in contempt of the Court’s April 6th order. The judge recognized that this decision will do little to end the political infighting plaguing the MN-S stating, “[i]t is clear to me that my decision, on this specific matter, will in no way lead to peace within MNS. All I can do is decide this application, according to law”.