Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Federal Court found elected officials of Carry the Kettle First Nation in contempt for violating a court-ordered stay of their colleagues’ removal.

• Respondents proceeded with a by-election despite a binding interim court order prohibiting such action.

• The Court confirmed that the removal of the Applicants from their elected positions was unlawful due to lack of quorum and improper tribunal formation.

• Evidence showed that public funds from the First Nation were used by Respondents to finance their personal contempt defence.

• Lump-sum costs of $35,000 were awarded to the Applicants, reflecting both misconduct and the complexity of the proceedings.

• The Court emphasized the public interest in upholding respect for judicial authority and lawful governance within Indigenous communities.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and removal from office

Terrina Bellegarde and Joellen Haywahe were elected councillors of Carry the Kettle First Nation (CTKFN) on April 7, 2022. On November 5, 2022, they were removed from their positions by other members of the band council via Band Council Resolutions. The Applicants contested their removal, arguing that the CTKFN Council lacked the quorum and qualified majority required under the CTKFN Cega-Kin Nakoda Oyate Custom Election Act. They filed applications for leave and judicial review in the Federal Court. Justice Grammond granted interim relief, issuing a stay order that temporarily blocked their removal and prohibited a by-election from taking place.

Violation of court order and contempt proceedings

Despite the stay order, the Respondents—Chief Scott Eashappie, Councillors Shawn Spencer and Tamara Thomson, and Councillor Lucy Musqua—proceeded with organizing a by-election to fill the seats of the removed councillors. This triggered contempt proceedings initiated by the Applicants. The Federal Court found the Respondents guilty of contempt for violating the stay order, concluding that their actions directly undermined the authority of the Court.

Decision on underlying application

Subsequently, Justice Régimbald ruled in favor of the Applicants in the judicial review. He determined that the band council had not lawfully removed Bellegarde and Haywahe. The council lacked the quorum and did not properly constitute the tribunal required to remove elected officials. The Court held that the Applicants remained entitled to their positions and should receive all backpay. Furthermore, the by-election that replaced them was declared void from the outset.

Costs hearing and financial implications

The issue of costs was addressed in the decision dated July 16, 2025. The Applicants sought solicitor-client costs totaling $59,635.38, citing extensive delays and misconduct by the Respondents. They also submitted evidence that the Respondents used approximately $170,000 of CTKFN funds to pay their legal fees, further supporting their argument for a personal cost award. The Court acknowledged that the Respondents failed to pay previously ordered costs and fines voluntarily, necessitating enforcement steps.

The Court ultimately awarded a lump-sum of $35,000 to the Applicants. The cost award was apportioned among the Respondents in proportion to their fines: $14,560 to Chief Eashappie, $9,730 each to Councillors Thomson and Spencer, and $980 to Councillor Musqua. The decision emphasized that public money could not be used to satisfy this award. Each Respondent was personally liable to pay, and payment was to be made through their legal counsel’s trust accounts.

Legal significance

The Court reaffirmed the principle that elected officials are not above the law and must comply with judicial orders. In contempt proceedings, solicitor-client costs are often justified to prevent parties from bearing the cost of upholding the rule of law. The Court also recognized the broader public interest in promoting lawful governance and judicial authority within First Nations. Despite the partial success of the Applicants in the contempt motion (charges against some respondents were dismissed or withdrawn), the seriousness of the contempt and the use of public funds warranted a firm cost award.