The Supreme Court of Canada partially upheld an appeal filed by an Indigenous community that requested funds to pursue its legal claims against the oil and gas industries due to its bankruptcy status, noting that they may qualify for state benefits of anticipated expenses, for which it ordered a fresh assessment of the background of the case.
The case relates to a lawsuit filed by an indigenous tribe in Alberta (Canada), who sought compensation from the authorities for damage caused to their environment by the hydrocarbons industry. As a result, he had to pay $3 million in legal fees out of a total of $5 million. Due to the foregoing, he requested judicial authorization to take advantage of the anticipated expenses and thus have sufficient funds to continue with his legal case and pay the remaining $2 million.
The judge in question granted their request, and ordered the state and province of Alberta to set up a $300,000 fund annually to defray the cost of the process, until the total amount is covered. However, this decision was overturned in the second instance, as the Court of Appeal held that the indigenous community had not duly proved that it could not afford its legal costs, nor its status, benefits. required to qualify for.
Because of this he appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the second instance. In their presentation, they argue that although they have funds to cover legal expenses, these are earmarked for priority needs, such as the maintenance and construction of infrastructure and the financing of social assistance for their members, which necessary for their existence.
In its analysis of the merits, the Court found that “(…) the test of anticipated costs is rigorous because courts must take into account the limits of their institutional functions. Three absolute requirements must be met: poverty, meritorious case and matter of public importance. The concept of necessity has been captured by the Court’s order that advance costs should be ordered as a last resort, when the applicant is genuinely unable to afford the litigation, and when without such costs Should it be impossible to proceed with the litigation.
He states that “(…) this approach is flexible enough to take into account the realities faced by First Nations governments (Indigenous communities) and the importance of promoting the goal of reconciliation. considerations in which a First Nation’s government makes financial decisions, including its competing spending commitments, restrictions on the use of its resources, and fiduciary and good governance obligations. The First Nation’s government must actually use some or all of its resources for priorities other than litigation. All resources may need to be allocated.”
It observes that “(…) the Court’s analysis must be based strictly on evidence and may require detailed evidence to ensure accountability for the expenditure of public money. The Court must (1) consider the urgent needs of the applicant; (2) determine what resources are needed to meet those needs; (3) assess the financial resources of the applicant; and (4) identify the estimated cost of funding the litigation” .
Ultimately, the Court concluded that “(…) the pressing needs of a First Nation must be considered from the perspective of its government, which sets its priorities and is in the best position to identify its needs. This will always be a determination based on the specific facts.There is no doubt that spending on the basic necessities of life, including adequate housing, clean water supplies, and basic health and education services, has risen to levels of extreme need.
Based on the foregoing, the Court resolved to partially accept the appeal and remand the case back to the Court to re-evaluate the request including the community’s current financial situation.
SOURCE: NATIONWORLDSNEWS