| Citation: |
Eikland v. White River First Nation, 2010 FC 854, [2010] 4 F.C.R. D-3 |
T-1080-08 |
Aboriginal Peoples
Elections
Reference pursuant to Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.3(1) to determine whether referendum legally effective, valid method of ascertaining broad consensus of band membership necessary for determining voter eligibility rules—Applicant moving to set aside chief, council election because American, non-status Indians within meaning of Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 (Act) allowed to vote—Parties agreeing to resolve difference of opinion concerning eligible voters within band by way of referendum—Also agreeing unnecessary to follow band’s constitutional amending formula that does not contemplate referendum, as long as broad consensus reached—Band constitution providing citizenship, voting rights even to those without Indian status, registration as band member within meaning of Act—Issues whether (1) referendum limited to registered status band members, (2) broad consensus can be reached without following constitutional amending formula, (3) referendum result reflection of broad consensus—Broad consensus necessary for change consensus within band of Indians, excluding non-Indians—Band constitution not comparable to Constitution Acts—Custom by nature not frozen in time, can change in response to changed circumstances—Circumstances having changed herein, wrong to fetter, tie band to formula no longer relevant—Majority vote in favour, against each referendum question deemed to indicate broad consensus for purpose of determining rules for conducting future chief, council elections—Motion granted.
Eikland v. White River First Nation (T-1080-08, 2010 FC 854, Harrington J., order dated August 27, 2010, 10 pp.)