He said Canada should have taught effective parenting skills to his parents
In a proposed class action brought on behalf of second-generation residential school survivors, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court’s decision, which had stricken the claim without certifying it or granting leave to amend.
Born in 1991, the appellant in Brandon v. Canada, 2026 FCA 57, was the child of residential school survivors. Due to his father’s abuse of him, the appellant resided in numerous foster homes and sustained a brain injury from which he never recovered.
In a proposed claim, the appellant alleged that Canada breached the duty of care it owed to second-generation residential school survivors to teach and equip their parents with effective parenting skills and other necessary life skills to enable them to live as peaceful, well-functioning adults after their time in the residential school system.
The appellant argued that the harms were foreseeable effects of the psychological, physical, sexual, and spiritual abuse his parents had experienced.
The Crown notified the appellant of the claim’s perceived deficiencies. He moved to certify his claim as a proposed class proceeding. The case management judge ordered him to respond to the Crown, possibly with suggested amendments to his claim.
After the appellant failed to comply with the order by the deadline, the Crown moved to strike the claim without leave to amend for a lack of a reasonable cause of action under r. 221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106.
The Crown asserted that the release contained in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), executed in 2006 in connection with an omnibus class action filed in nine jurisdictions, barred the appellant’s claim. In December 2006, a Saskatchewan court had approved the settlement of the class proceeding in line with the IRSSA’s terms.
The Federal Court struck the appellant’s claim, which had never reached the certification stage, without leave to amend. The court determined that the claim, barred by the IRSSA release, would plainly and obviously fail. This decision prompted the appeal.
No error found
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appeal court saw no reviewable error in the Federal Court’s:
- characterization of the appellant’s claim
- finding that his factual allegations fell within the IRSSA, including the release
- conclusion that the release in the Saskatchewan judgment conclusively barred his claim
The appeal court ruled that the appellant’s claim – alleging wrongs relating to the abuse his parents had undergone while attending residential schools and a failure by the Crown to equip them with the necessary life skills – did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Next, the appeal court held that the appellant was a class member and a member of the family class, as defined in the 2006 Saskatchewan judgment.
The appeal court noted that the appellant, born in 1991 to residential school survivors and survivor class members, resided in Saskatchewan at the time of the IRSSA’s execution.
The appeal court rejected the argument that the appellant, who had been a minor in 2006, could rescind the voidable IRSSA upon reaching the age of majority.
The appeal court pointed out that paragraph 28 of the Saskatchewan judgment made the IRSSA and the judgment binding on every class member, including minors and those who were mentally incapable.
The appeal court acknowledged that the appellant’s situation involved tragic circumstances.
