Woman was not given right to reply: court
The Federal Court found a procedural fairness breach in a will voidance application under the Indian Act.
In Jack v. Wildcat, 2024 FC 1, Delphine Stella Jack, a 79-year-old member of the Okanagan Indian Band, appealed the Minister of Indigenous Service's decision, denying her request to void her mother's Will under the Indian Act. Before the minister, Jack argued that the will was unclear, vague, uncertain and capricious, so the proper administrative and equitable estate distribution would be difficult or impossible. She also argued that the terms of the will would impose hardship on her, a "person for whom the testator had a responsibility to provide."
The minister found no evidence that the terms of the will were so vague, uncertain, or capricious that the proper administration of the estate would be difficult or impossible to carry out under the act. Accordingly, the minister dismissed Jack's application to void the will. Jack raised the matter to the Federal Court, arguing that the minister breached procedural fairness by denying her a right of reply or an opportunity to respond to the submissions and evidence raised against her application.
The court considered several factors provided in jurisprudence about the overarching requirement of fairness, especially regarding the nature of the decision and the importance of the decision to the parties involved. The court found that the required degree of procedural fairness fell at the high end of the spectrum. The court noted that preserving Indigenous land forms an underlying consideration of the Indian Act. The court stressed that the minister must remain vigilant in ensuring procedural safeguards are in place to protect this preservation.
Jack argued that the minister's action was procedurally unfair because it did not allow her to respond to or challenge the evidence raised against her request to void the will. In Jack's view, the minister's elected procedure denied her the opportunity to know the case against her and make representations accordingly. She contended that a right of reply would allow her to examine the opposing party witnesses and make further legal submissions.
The court ultimately found that the minister owed Jack a right to reply. The court concluded that the minister's process did not meet the requirements of procedural fairness warranted under the relevant provisions of the Indian Act, which are on the higher end of the procedural fairness spectrum. Accordingly, the court quashed the minister's decision and remitted the case for reconsideration.
