The Grand Council of the Crees

Forestry Case Chronology

Forestry Case Chronology from 1998 to 2000

Posted: 0000-00-00

On July 15, 1998, the Crees file the Mario Lord proceedings (a.k.a. the "main case").

Various Motions for Particulars (to the case) and Production of Documents were filed by most Defendants immediately thereafter. These Motions have not yet been heard.

Two Motions to Dismiss were filed by the Society for the Development of James Bay (a provincial body created under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement) and Barrette-Chapais Lt?e in August 1998. These Motions have not yet been heard.

On January 28, 1999, Justice Grenier of the Superior Court dismissed a Motion by some of the forestry companies from Amos Quebec seeking to have their case be heard in Amos instead of Montreal.

On July 6, 1999, the Crees filed Interlocutory Injunction Motion no. 1 against Canada and Quebec. The Motion calls for a halt in the approval process of forest management plans of the companies pending their review under the social and environmental review process set out in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Historically Quebec has refused to subject forest management plans to this regime.

On July 21 1999, Canada filed a Motion for Declinatory Exception. Canada was seeking to be withdrawn from the Mario Lord case (main case) in certain respects.

On July 28, 1999, the Crees filed an Interlocutory Injunction Motion no. 2 against various forestry companies seeking a halt of forestry operations on various hunting areas.

On August 25, 1999, the Crees filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgement (Motion no. 3) in relation to the proposed Donohue Road Project which will open up one of the last untouched areas of Waswanipi hunting areas or traplines.

In September 1999, the attorneys of the Defendant forwarded a list of 37 judges to the Associate Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court stating that the 37 judges were unable (because of their past records) to hear the Cree claims.

On November 24, 1999, Justice Croteau dismissed the Motion for Declinatory Exception filed by Canada (see #6 above).

On November 30, 1999, the Crees filed a Motion for orders to safeguard their rights with respect to Motion no. 1 (see #5 above). Since this case was filed in early July, Quebec had stepped up its efforts approve the forest management plans, which would nullify this Motion.

From December 6-10, both parties argue the November 30, 1999 Motion.

On December 20, 1999, Justice Croteau reserved his judgement on the safeguard Motion and ordered the amendment of the Quebec forestry legislation so as to include the social and environmental assessment and review regime of Section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement before July 1, 2000 (see #5 above).

On January 14, 2000, the Defendant forestry companies filed an Application for leave to appeal and to suspend the provisional execution of the December 20, 1999 judgement.

On January 17, 2000, Quebec filed an Application for leave to appeal the same judgement.

On January 21, 2000, Justice Andr? Forget of the Quebec Court of Appeal granted Quebec and the forestry companies leave to appeal and cancelled the provisional execution of the December 20, 1999 judgement and ordered the continuance of the proceedings that led up to the filing of the safe guard order (Motions no. 1 and 2).

On January 24, 2000, the attorneys of Quebec, Canada and the forestry companies forward a letter to Justice Croteau (who rendered the December 20, 1999 judgement) asking him to recuse himself.

On January 24, 2000, attorneys for the Crees send Justice Croteau a letter opposing the letter calling for his recusation.

On January 25, 2000, the Crees filed the Supplementary Motion for orders of safeguard their rights, given the reserved judgement of Justice Croteau and the acceleration of the Quebec's approval of the forest management plans.

On January 27, 2000, Justice Croteau responds in a letter to the attorneys of all parties refusing to recuse himself.

On January 27, 2000, Quebec, Canada and the forestry companies filed a Joint Motion to forcibly recuse Justice Croteau.

On February 2, 2000, Justice Croteau filed a Declaration setting out in more detail his refusal to recuse himself.

On February 11, 2000, the attorneys for the Crees filed a Reply contesting the Joint Motion to forcible recusation.

On February 16 and 17, the attorneys of the parties argued before the Chief Justice (Lyse Lemieux) on the recusation issue.

On March 8, 2000, Chief Justice Lemieux recused Justice Croteau from both proceedings mentioned above (no. 1 and 2).

On April 6, 2000, An Act to regulate the forest management activities of holders of timber supply and forest management agreements for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (Law 105) came into force.

On April 7, 2000, the Crees filed an Application for leave to appeal the Lemieux judgement of March 8, 2000.

On April 26, 2000 Justice Michaud, Delisle and Pidgeon of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Canada in relation to its Motion for Declinatory Exception (see #6 and 10 above). The Court referred to the rights invoked by the Crees in their proceedings as constitutional rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This includes treaty rights.

On May 15, 2000, Justices Baudouin, Proulx and Otis of the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of Quebec and the forestry companies in relation to the December 20, 1999 judgement (see #11 and 13 above), set aside this judgement, denied the November 30, 1999 motion (see #11 and 19 above) with costs in the first instance and appeal. The Quebec Court of Appeal referred to the contractual rights of the Crees under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement contradicting the April 26, 2000 ruling.

On May 17, 2000, Justices Baudouin, Proulx and Otis of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the Crees Application for leave to appeal in relation to the judgement to recuse Justice Croteau. They then assigned costs.

On May 30, 2000, Quebec announced Bill 136--An Act to amend the Forest Act and other legislative provisions.