On December 18, 2025, the Federal Court dismissed the judicial review brought by former Chief Judy Desjarlais and upheld the decision of the Blueberry River First Nations Council (“Council”) to remove her from office. Joseph Ensom and Tessa Latowsky successfully represented the Council at a two-day hearing before the Honourable Justice Cecily Strickland. In its decision, the Court confirmed that Council acted reasonably under its own Custom Election By-law, reinforcing the significant deference owed to First Nations decision-makers when interpreting and applying their governance instruments.

The judicial review arose from a September 2024 Band Council Resolution removing the former Chief following an independent investigation into allegations of her misconduct. The investigation concluded that the Chief had acted beyond the scope of her authority and had been intentionally dishonest. Council ultimately determined that this conduct warranted removal and, as the Court confirmed, followed the procedures set out in the Custom Election By-law in reaching that decision.

The Applicant challenged the removal on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that Council failed to strictly comply with the By-law and that removal was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Federal Court rejected the Applicant’s arguments in their entirety.

A central theme of the Court’s reasons is that Indigenous governance decisions must be reviewed contextually, not through a hyper-technical lens. The Court held that Council substantially complied with the removal provisions of its By-law and that the process was both procedurally fair and reasonable. In particular, the Court emphasized that the Chief:

• had clear notice of the allegations;
• participated in the investigation process;
• received and responded to the investigator’s report; and
• was given an opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate sanction before Council deliberated and made its decision.

This process satisfied the requirements of procedural fairness in the circumstances.

Important Procedural Law Takeaways

The decision is notable for several procedural takeaways.

First, the Applicant advanced several arguments at the hearing that, as the Respondents submitted – and the Court agreed – were not properly raised in the Notice of Application. The Court confirmed that applicants must clearly and specifically set out their grounds of review in their Notice of Application, and parties cannot expand or reformulate their case at the hearing stage based on affidavit evidence. In this case, the Applicant did not bring a motion to amend her Notice of Application. While the Court addressed several of the newly raised arguments for completeness, it confirmed that they were not properly before the Court.

Second, the Court held that a number of the Applicant’s complaints failed because they had not been raised before Council. The Court reaffirmed that judicial review is not an opportunity to raise new issues after the fact and that the time for raising concerns regarding procedural fairness is during the decision process itself.

Why This Decision Matters

This judgment is significant well beyond Blueberry River First Nations. It confirms that courts will defer to reasonable, good-faith governance decisions made by Indigenous decision-makers pursuant to their own custom laws. Further, that parties seeking judicial review of these decisions must ensure that their arguments are (1) raised before the first-instance decision-maker and (2) are properly set out in the Notice of Application.

For questions regarding this case or related issues, please reach out to Joseph Ensom or Tessa Latowsky.