Duty of Fairness. A Press release was posted on the Metis Nation of Alberta website, May 3. Here is the rest of the story...

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta

Citation: Boucher v. Métis Nation of Alberta Association, 2008 ABCA 239

Date: 20080624

Docket: 0803-0133-AC
Registry: Edmonton

Between: Rick Boucher Applicant (Appellant)

- and -

Métis Nation of Alberta Association, Audrey Poitras, Métis Judiciary Council, Dale Friedel, Toby Racette, Ken Shaw, Bertha Clarke-Jones and Bonnie Bell Respondents (Respondents)
_______________________________________________________
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Mr. Justice Jean Côté
_______________________________________________________
Application for a Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
_______________________________________________________
Reasons for Decision of
The Honourable Mr. Justice Jean Côté
_______________________________________________________
[1] I heard an application for a stay of execution pending appeal. These are the reasons to
explain why I gave what is loosely called a stay of execution, but (as counsel point out) is more
strictly an injunction pending appeal. The relevant tests (for stay and injunction) are the same. I then gave a number of detailed oral conditions, and left costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

[2] The appellant’s counsel properly points to my powers under Rr. 508 and 753.15(1). I add Rr.
4 and 440.

[3] I have read the long careful reasons of the chambers judge, 2008 ABQB 262. They may be
right, but there are many difficult questions of law involved, including the quorum of the Métis
Judicial Council. So I cannot say that the appeal is not arguable. Nor does any of the counsel suggest that. The respondent’s written argument suggests a stricter test pending appeal, a strong prima facie case. If that is so (and I do not decide that), I believe it is met here. Harris v. Law Socy. of Alberta [1936] S.C.R. 88 may be distinguishable.

[4] Would denying a stay work irreparable prejudice or make the appeal nugatory? One can
usually not be certain. But here there is some sworn evidence that the Provincial Council of the
Métis Nation of Alberta is now split between two factions on many issues. Though that is not a
happy result, democracy sometimes does that. The evidence suggests that if the appellant is
removed, that will produce a tie which Audrey Poitras can break with her casting vote as an exofficio member. I believe that would cause some irreparable harm to the appellant and his allies. In addition, the appellant is one of the two elected representatives for one region. Without a stay, they will lose his services and votes irreparably.

[5] What is the balance of inconvenience? To the appellant, the danger is as I have just outlined.
To the respondents, the danger is that the appellant will carry on what they see as a disloyal course of disruption. However, he is only one vote. He cannot alone break a quorum, for example. In the past instance where provincial funding was lost, it took six other fellow members of the Provincial Council to stay away. It is still possible for the appellant to convince others how to attend, abstain, or vote, with or without a stay of execution.

[6] It is suggested that my stay would give or restore to the appellant credibility, but I have no
evidence of that, and it is speculation as to the future. It is also said that the appellant is defaming and misleading others. Again, I can see no evidence that my stay or its lack would much add to or subtract from his ability to do that. Nor do the affidavits convince me that the appellant’s pronouncements are causing the respondents grave harm.

Page: 2
[7] In short, I believe that the harm from a stay would be less than that from its absence. And
some of the harm with a stay would not really be caused by the stay, but rather by the workings of democracy.

[8] I am tempted to say more about the events detailed in the affidavits, but it is undesirable that I go into the merits of the appeal. Three other justices may see it differently and will go into it more deeply.

Application heard on June 17, 2008
Reasons filed at Edmonton, Alberta this 24th day of June, 2008 Côté J.A.

Page: 3
Appearances: Senia Tarrabain for the Applicant (Appellant) Rick Boucher

H.J. Sniderman/L.C. Kelly for the Respondents (Respondents) Métis Nation of Alberta Association and Audrey Poitras

D.N. Jardine for the Respondent (Respondent) Métis Judiciary Council

www.albertacourts.ab.ca/Courtof Appeal/Judgments/tabid/84/ct/searchJudgmentsResult/mid/664/Default.aspx