The plaintiff, Matthew Brandon, who suffered brain damage as a result of the abuse he faced as a child, sought to bring a claim against Canada on the basis that the harm he suffered was rooted in the wrongs of the residential school system.
In Brandon v. Canada, 2025 FC 443, published on April 2, Justice Michael Manson rejected arguments that the plaintiff was not bound by the terms of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
“The hardship that this plaintiff, and no doubt many like him, have endured is horrific and profoundly distressing. However, this court must respect the overarching objectives of certainty and finality that perfuse any settlement, and particularly those relating to reconciliation,” the judge wrote.
The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) was signed in 2006 to settle the claims of Indigenous persons removed and separated from their families and communities to attend residential schools.
The agreement provided for individual compensation available to all persons who resided at residential schools under the common experience program (CEP), as well as additional compensation for those who suffered physical and sexual abuse under the independent assessment process (IAP).
It also included initiatives to address the broader historical and future concerns of the IRSSA class members, their families and their communities at large.
The plaintiff commenced a proposed class proceeding on behalf of the children of residential school survivors.
Brandon claimed that Canada owed the children of residential school survivors a duty of care to teach their parents necessary life skills to function as peaceful and well-functioning adults.
The plaintiff alleged that Canada breached this duty by releasing residential school survivors from their control without preparing them to be responsible parents, and with the knowledge that they were likely to cause harm to others, including their own children.
Canada brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and because it was barred by the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement’s release.
The plaintiff argued that the IRSSA was not a legal impediment to the claim because it did not bind any of the members of the class who were minors and infants at the time of the execution of the agreement.
The plaintiff submitted that the proposed class members, as infants and minors, received no or negligible benefit from the IRSSA, arguing that any contract that is not for the infant’s benefit or that contains stipulations disadvantageous to him or her is void as it is a release of an infant’s rights.
Canada argued that the resolution and release of the IRSSA includes all claims potentially advanced on behalf of the purported class in the action.
Justice Manson noted that the plaintiff’s allegations related to the mistreatment of and failure to teach non-violent parenting skills to residential school survivors and that the alleged actions were contemplated and explicitly covered by IRSSA and the release.
“It is not open to this court to relitigate those issues that the IRSSA resolved and brought finality to nearly 20 years ago,” the judge wrote.
Justice Manson found that the plaintiff’s argument that the IRSSA cannot bind infants and minors because they received no or negligible benefit from the agreement failed in light of the court approval orders for the agreement by nine Superior Courts across Canada.
The judge cited Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General), 83 OR (3d) 481, in which the Ontario Superior Court ruled that estates of individuals who had passed away prior to commencement of negotiations for the settlement agreement were excluded from receiving compensation under the CEP or the IAP.
He noted that in Baxter, the court was aware of and considered the fact that the IRSSA had the effect of extinguishing claims of certain class members who are not entitled to receive direct compensation under IRSSA.
Justice Manson found that the fact that proposed class members did not receive a direct benefit from the IRSSA did not negate the validity and enforceability of the IRSSA.
“There is no reason to interfere with the nine court approval orders finding that the IRSSA was fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class of a whole, which again, explicitly includes children of residential school survivors and minors,” the judge wrote.
The court also observed that even though the plaintiff, as a minor at the time, may not have received actual notice, this did not prevent the class from being bound where sufficient steps had been undertaken to provide adequate notice to the class.
“The IRSSA was the product of a desire to provide a fair, comprehensive and lasting resolution of the legacy of Indian residential schools. … Seeking ambiguities in settlement agreements years after approval works to create uncertainty and unpredictability in settlement agreements and disincentivizes settlement,” the judge wrote.
The court held that the claim was barred by the IRSSA release and that it was therefore plain and obvious that it would fail.
Justice Mason struck the plaintiff’s statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that no pleading could overcome the fact that the claim was barred by the IRSSA release.
Counsel for the parties were not immediately available for comment.
Counsel for the plaintiff was E.F. Anthony Merchant of Merchant Law Group LLP.
Counsel for the Crown were Travis Henderson and Carolyn Phan of Justice Canada.
If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.