Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether multiple nominations by a single elector violated section 9(4) of the First Nations Elections Act

• Applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence or legal authority to support their interpretation of the nomination rule

• Court found that the legal issue was straightforward, not complex, despite being framed as governance-related

• Respondents cited repeated procedural delays and missed deadlines by Applicants as justification for higher costs

• Judicial discretion in costs was exercised in light of case conduct, not solely the nature of the legal issue

• Ultimately, a lump sum cost award was given, reflecting standard practice in similar First Nations governance cases

Facts and outcome of the case

The dispute over election validity

Gerald and Glenn Papaquash brought a judicial review application challenging the validity of the Key First Nation's council election. They alleged that the election contravened subsection 9(4) of the First Nations Elections Act, which prohibits an elector from nominating more than one candidate per position. The Respondents were the elected council members—Dave Cote, Kimberly Keshane, Sidney Keshane, Fernie O’Soup, and Solomon Reece—as well as Drew Shaw, the electoral officer from One Feather Election Services.

Applicants' legal position

The Applicants argued that “double nominations” violated the Act. However, their position was unsupported by legal authorities or meaningful interpretation of the provision. The evidence they provided was minimal—limited to a bald assertion in an affidavit. This lack of evidence or jurisprudential support became a central weakness in their case.

Court’s analysis and decision

Justice McDonald ruled that the core issue was not legally complex. Although it touched on First Nations governance, the matter boiled down to statutory interpretation and evidentiary sufficiency. The Applicants failed to meet their burden of proof and did not demonstrate that any nominations were unlawful under subsection 9(4). The Respondents were therefore successful in defending the election’s validity.

Costs ruling and rationale

Following the main judgment (previously issued under 2025 FC 859), the Respondents—particularly Solomon Reece—sought enhanced costs under Column V of Tariff B, arguing the case involved complexity and significant legal work due to the Applicants’ repeated non-compliance with court deadlines. The Court agreed that the Applicants caused delays, which necessitated procedural motions and wasted court time.

However, the judge found that the legal issue itself was not sufficiently complex to justify the highest cost scale. Referring to precedents in other First Nations governance cases, where costs typically ranged between $2,500 and $5,000, the Court awarded a lump sum of $5,000 to the Respondents. No damages were awarded, as the matter did not concern financial loss but was strictly a procedural and legal dispute over election compliance.