Judge Quashes Decision By Blood Tribe Band Council
LETHBRIDGE: A decision by the Blood Tribe Band Council has been quashed by a federal judge.
Back in December they decided not to renew permits to allow Joachim Hengerer to continue farming reserve lands, which he’s farmed for registered occupants since 1981. That’s despite a contract with those occupants that the permits would be allowed until March of 2016.
The council gave seven reasons for their decision, claiming that he disregarded several directions from the Band and made racist comments (See below). You can read their full list of concerns by using the link at the bottom of this story.
The land occupants and Hengerer raised concerns that they were never able to address any of those issues, as the Band Council without consulting those who would be impacted.
Judge James Russell explained that if the Band still wants to terminate its agreement with Hengerer before March 31st, 2016, they must first notify Hengerer in writing of their intentions and provide their reasons. He added that Band Council must also hold meetings with all Band members affected at which Hengerer will be given a chance to address their concerns and produce his own evidence if he wants to.
Below are the allegations against Hengerer as written by Judge James Russell, followed by arguments from Hengerer’s supporters:
Allegations
(a) disregarded directions from the Band’s Land Management Department regarding the planting of winter wheat;
(b) disregarded survey markers;
(c) failed to report “Buck Shea” arrangements to Land Management;
(d) failed to submit a crop report to Land Management for 2013;
(e) failed to maintain fences in 2013;
(f) not remitted payment of crop rental fees for the invoice amounts in 2013;
(g) made racists remarks against Band members.
Response
[20] The Applicants say that the Decision is reviewable by the Court because Council acted as a federal board, commission or other tribunal as defined by the Federal Courts Act and the governing jurisprudence.
[21] Hengerer denies any of the alleged infractions and says that Council entered into agreements with registered Occupants (Agreements or MOUs) that provided that Council would cause Permits to be issued to Hengerer to allow Hengerer to farm approximately 56,000 acres of Reserve Lands from March 31, 2013 to March 31, 2016. Council’s failure to renew Permits for Hengerer, or to cause the Permits to be renewed, is a breach of legally binding contracts between the Band and Occupants.
[22] The Applicants say that the breach of contractual obligations by Council occurred in a manner that, given the whole context and representations made by Counsels, resulted in a breach of procedural fairness to the Applicants and which obviated their legitimate expectations.
[23] The Applicants say that the appropriate relief in this case is to quash the Decision and for the Court to direct that Band Council fulfill its obligations under the Agreements. Specifically, the Band Council should be directed to cause Permits to be issued to Hengerer and Hengerer Farms until March 31, 2016, with respect to the lands described in Exhibit “A” to the February 5, 2014 Hengerer Affidavit. Alternatively, they say the Court should direct the Decision to be reconsidered by an independent panel (an arbitration panel appointed pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Policy attached as Exhibit “A” to Elliot Fox’s February 2014 Affidavit is one possible option) or the Chief and Council excluding the Land Management Committee members, who they say are biased.
|
||||||