Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the Key First Nation Council followed the Indian Band Council Procedure Regulations or could create its own meeting rules.

• Legality of Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) passed by a “Subgroup” of councillors without the Chief’s participation.

• Validity of a Procedures By-law that altered governance roles without proper convening or member ratification.

• Examination of procedural fairness, quorum requirements, and notice for duly convened meetings.

• Determination of whether certain BCRs involved public law matters suitable for judicial review versus private law matters.

• Remedy including quashing invalid BCRs, awarding retroactive remuneration, and partial costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute
This case arose from governance conflicts within the Key First Nation following the June 12, 2022 election of Chief Clinton David Key and five councillors. Four of those councillors—David Cote, Kimberly Keshane, Sidney Keshane, and Fernie O’Soup—formed what the Court referred to as a “Subgroup.” Starting in August 2023, the Subgroup began holding meetings without the Chief and passing numerous Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) affecting governance, finances, membership, and the Chief’s role. This included placing Chief Key’s duties into abeyance, removing him from various boards, and excluding him from administrative offices.

The Chief filed two applications for judicial review in August and October 2024, later consolidated. He sought to quash 79 BCRs passed between August 2023 and December 2024 and to have the Procedures By-law declared invalid. The Respondents argued the meetings were properly convened, the BCRs valid, and that they were acting within their authority as elected councillors.

Key legal questions before the Court
The Court examined whether the Key First Nation Council was governed by the Indian Band Council Procedure Regulations (Council Regulations), whether the Respondents had authority to pass the disputed BCRs, the validity of the Procedures By-law, and whether some BCRs fell within the Court’s judicial review jurisdiction. It also considered procedural fairness requirements and the scope of remedies.

Court’s findings
The Court found that the Key First Nation, as a participating First Nation under the First Nations Elections Act, had not adopted its own meeting procedures and therefore operated under the Council Regulations. The evidence showed no agreed schedule of regular meetings, making all council meetings “special meetings” that only the Chief could convene. The Subgroup’s meetings were not duly convened, lacked proper notice to all members, and in some cases were chaired by individuals other than the Chief.

Group 1 BCRs—those affecting the Chief’s authority and council governance—were quashed as invalid. The Procedures By-law, passed on October 1, 2024, was also struck down because the meeting was not duly convened, procedural fairness was lacking, and the changes redefined governance roles without community ratification.

BCRs in Groups 3–7, involving legal representation, housing allocations, education funding, land transactions, and membership, were found to be of a private law nature and not suitable for judicial review. The Court declined to quash them to avoid disruption and prejudice to individuals not party to the proceedings.

Remedies and costs
The Court awarded the Applicant $5,000 in costs for a related motion, ordered retroactive reinstatement of remuneration and benefits from the date of his unlawful suspension, and directed the parties to determine the exact amount within 60 days or return to court. The Court also strongly urged the parties to repair their working relationship to restore effective governance for the Key First Nation.