Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff alleged an oral or implied contingency fee agreement entitling him to 15% of a future $100 million settlement.

• No written contract was submitted, despite the centrality of the alleged agreement to the claim.

• Defendant argued the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was outside the Federal Court’s jurisdiction.

• Plaintiff sought declaratory, compensatory, and injunctive relief based on the alleged contract.

• The Federal Court applied the ITO-Windsor test to assess jurisdiction and found no statutory basis to hear the case.

• Motion to strike was granted, and the claim was dismissed with $3,000 in costs awarded to the defendant.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and claim
Eric Bunn, a member of the Sagkeeng First Nation (SFN), brought a civil claim in the Federal Court in January 2025. He alleged that in May 2000, he entered into a contingency fee agreement with SFN entitling him to 15% of any settlement funds from a Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) claim. According to Bunn, he provided legal services to SFN in the early stages of the TLE process, including the preparation of the claim. He asserted that this agreement was made with SFN’s Chief and Council but acknowledged that a written version was never finalized or signed.

The claim emerged in the context of SFN’s acceptance of a $100 million settlement offer in principle from the federal government in 2024 for its outstanding treaty land entitlement. Bunn sought compensation based on his alleged contract, a declaration affirming its existence, and an injunction preventing SFN from using any of the settlement funds until the matter was resolved.

Defendant’s response and motion
SFN, represented by counsel from Cochrane Sinclair LLP, filed a motion under Rule 221(1) of the Federal Court Rules to strike Bunn’s claim. They argued that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the dispute fell outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Specifically, SFN contended the matter was a private contractual dispute not grounded in federal law or federal statutory authority, as required under the ITO-Windsor jurisdictional framework.

Court’s reasoning
The Federal Court agreed with SFN, emphasizing that the alleged agreement did not involve the Crown and therefore did not meet the threshold for Federal Court jurisdiction under section 17 of the Federal Courts Act. The Court also noted that Bunn had not identified any relevant statutory provisions under the Indian Act or elsewhere that could extend jurisdiction to the Court in a private contract dispute between a service provider and a First Nation.

The Court found that even assuming the facts as pleaded were true, the claim did not raise any issues falling within federal jurisdiction. As such, it was “plain and obvious” the Court could not hear the matter. The Court struck the claim in its entirety without leave to amend, describing the flaws in the pleadings as structural and incurable.

Outcome
The decision was issued on June 19, 2025. The Court granted the motion to strike and dismissed Bunn’s action. Costs of $3,000 were awarded to SFN, reduced from the $7,000 initially requested. Bunn represented himself throughout the proceedings and did not present a jurisdictional basis for his claim, which ultimately led to its dismissal.