NTI lawyer describes federal motion as 'a very surprising departure' from usual course

The federal government wants the Government of Nunavut dragged into the $1 billion lawsuit launched by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., because it says both levels of government share responsibilities in implementing the land claim deal.

Justice Earle Johnson heard arguments on Friday, Jan. 25 in favour of and against the motion before adjourning with a promise to make a "timely" decision.

The hearing went on for hours and was so boring even one lawyer in the audience nearly fell asleep.

But it's an extremely important case, because it will clear up a crucial part of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that's notoriously vague: who is supposed to pick up the bill for educating Inuit to work in government.

The land claim agreement says governments must do things to bring Inuit employment in government up to representative levels, or about 85 per cent.

Right now it's stuck at about 50 per cent at the Government of Nunavut, and there just aren't enough qualified Inuit to bring it much higher.

But it's unclear what level of government is expected to pay for the necessary training to make this happen.

NTI, who launched the suit in 2006, maintains the federal government is negligent in their duties, and must pay to fix Nunavut's school system, which a conciliator brought in to examine the land claim dispute bluntly describes as "failing," with three of four Nunavut children dropping out.

The feds, however, maintain that training and employment are "shared responsibilities." As such, they say if NTI is suing them, NTI must also sue the Government of Nunavut, because they may also share the blame.

None of this pleases the GN or NTI, who both oppose having the GN drawn into the lawsuit.

Michele Annich, a lawyer representing the federal government, warned that leaving Nunavut out of the lawsuit may result in a separate trial several years from now – costing more time in court, and a lot of money.

She also said if the GN was not added as a defendant, "they could have legal obligations imposed upon them, and they will have no voice or opportunity to be heard."

She pointed out that Article 23, which deals with Inuit employment, does not specify which government is responsible for training Inuit. She argued this implies "that's a joint obligation."

"That can only mean you have both governments engaged."

Dougald Brown, the lawyer for NTI, said the attempt to drag the GN into the lawsuit is a "very surprising departure" from how most suits are handled, given that both the GN and NTI oppose the effort.

"The court is just not in the business of telling plaintiffs what claims they make against who," he said.

Besides, he said, the GN may be introduced as a third party during a trial, although Annich disputed how easy that would be.

Lorraine Land, a lawyer for the GN, disputed the claim that the GN and feds should be considered equal parties.

She said the GN has responsibilities under the land claim, much like a municipality or mining company, but that isn't the same as the "contractual" responsibilities the federal government has.

She also said if her government joined the suit, the case would be "significantly delayed," with "vastly bigger costs."