PIIKANI NATION v NORTH PEIGAN

This decision concerned whether certain Respondents could pursue claims allegedly arising from an interim Injunction obtained by Piikani Nation and Piikani Nation Chief and Council (collectively, “Piikani Nation”) in 2022, which was subsequently vacated in 2025 (the “Injunction”).

The Court had previously established a process to address potential claims arising from the Injunction (the “Injunction Claim Process”). The Injunction Claim Process required any Respondent seeking compensation to file an Application and supporting Affidavit evidence by specified deadlines. Although several Respondents indicated intent to pursue claims, none filed the required materials. After multiple extensions, a proposed Application was submitted without the required supporting Affidavit.

Justice Marion held that the Respondents failed to comply with the Injunction Claim Process and were therefore deemed to have waived any right to pursue claims arising from the Injunction. Notwithstanding the Court’s finding that the filing deadline extended to the next business day, as it fell on a statutory holiday, the Respondents did not file or attempt to file the required evidence in time.

Applying a Fiat process previously established in Piikani Nation v McMullen, 2025 ABKB 481, Marion J. declined to grant a Fiat to permit the late evidence to be filed. The Court found that the Respondents provided no reasonable explanation for their failure to comply with the Court’s directions and did not demonstrate that their proposed claims had a reasonable prospect of success. Justice Marion held that the asserted claims, including claims for lost honorariums, legal fees, special damages, and aggravated damages, were unsupported by evidence, speculative, and otherwise hopeless.

The Court further held that the proposed defamation claim lacked particulars, as required pursuant Rule 13.7(f), and that any defamation claim related to the Injunction was likely to be barred by absolute privilege. Justice Marion concluded that permitting the proposed Application to proceed would result in unnecessary delay, disproportionate expense, and a waste of judicial resources.

In the result, Marion J. held that the Respondents were no longer entitled to pursue claims arising from the Injunction and that each party was to bear its own costs. The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and directed Counsel for Piikani Nation to prepare the resulting Order.