Lawyers make arguments in GTC board meeting dispute

Lawyers delivered arguments in NWT Supreme Court on Thursday in a legal dispute over the validity of a Gwich’in Tribal Council board meeting.

The Nihtat Gwich’in Council and Ehdiitat Gwich’in Council filed a legal challenge in February against Gwich’in Grand Chief Frederick “Sonny” Blake Jr and representatives of Tsiigehtchic’s Gwichya Gwich’in Council and Fort McPherson’s Tetł’it Gwich’in Council.

The Nihtat and Ehdiitat councils, which represent Gwich’in members in Inuvik and Aklavik, argue a GTC board meeting held on February 3 in Edmonton was not valid.

That meeting did not include representatives from the Inuvik or Aklavik councils, who expressed concerns about several resolutions passed at the meeting, including the firing of the GTC’s chief executive officer. They also said they believe Blake has yet to be officially sworn in as grand chief.

Representatives of those councils are asking the court to issue an interim injunction preventing those who did attend the meeting from acting on resolutions that were passed, and preventing Blake from acting as grand chief until he is sworn in. (They contend no formal swearing-in has taken place, though a ceremony that they do not recognize did occur in late January.)

Lawyers for Blake and other people named in the legal action argue the injunction is “a drastic and extraordinary remedy” that is not necessary in the circumstances. They argue the disputed resolutions would be better addressed at a future board meeting rather than in the courtroom.

Election turmoil

The dispute stems from controversy related to the August 2024 election for grand chief.

While Blake garnered the most votes, the tribal council’s board overturned the election result on appeal. Blake then took the matter to the NWT Supreme Court, which ruled on January 14 that Blake had been duly elected as chief.

In court on Thursday, it was revealed that GTC board members unanimously voted at a meeting on January 19 to accept Blake as grand chief and hold a special assembly on January 31 in Tsiigehtchic where he would be sworn in.

At a subsequent meeting on January 29, however, council board members decided to postpone that assembly until March. They also decided to appeal and request a stay of the Supreme Court decision declaring Blake as chief. An appeal was filed and later withdrawn.

Lawyers said the January 31 assembly was postponed after the Ehdiitat Gwich’in Council indicated it did not have enough time to put together a delegation to attend. Nevertheless, a ceremony and celebration in Tsiigehtchic went ahead on that day.

‘A parallel government’

In court on Thursday, Senwung Luk, one of the lawyers representing the Nihtat and Ehdiitat councils, said there is a conflict in Gwich’in bylaws over how much time was required before an assembly to swear in Blake as chief could be held.

He said board members ultimately opted for a 30-day notice period following legal advice and after the Ehdiitat council said it would not be prepared for an assembly in late January. Luk argued that was a reasonable decision in the circumstances.

“Our clients did the best they could,” he said, adding they want to ensure the proper process is followed.

While the GTC board had decided to appeal the court decision, he said there is no dispute that Blake is the duly elected grand chief.

Luk accused Blake and some directors of the GTC board of running “a parallel government.” He said resolutions passed at the February 3 meeting were made impulsively and without legal advice, and alleged that his clients have been excluded from subsequent board meetings.

“They shot first and asked questions later,” he said.

“What we’re asking the court to do is press the pause button.”

Luk argued that if the court does not grant the injunction, it would be giving Blake and other board members the “green light to continue behaving without regard to the rules.”

‘That should not be rewarded’

Toby Kruger, one of the lawyers representing Blake, alleged that after the court decision, the GTC failed to take steps to coordinate a transition in leadership. He said the tribal council then relied on the lack of a transition to deny Blake his right of office.

“We say that should not be rewarded,” he said, adding Blake’s mandate to the Gwich’in should “be at the forefront of the court’s mind.”

Kruger said the Gwich’in bylaws do not require a public swearing-in at a special assembly. He said that has only been a ceremonial practice of the GTC in the past eight years.

He said a virtual assembly could have been held to swear in Blake five days after the court decision. He said the unanimous vote by the board recognizing Blake as chief was determinate.

Kruger further argued the Aklavik council’s claim that it did not have enough time to prepare for a January 31 assembly in Tsiigehtchic was “spurious,” and accused the council of putting its own interests ahead of the GTC. He called the planned assembly “a nation-building moment after a period of serious turmoil.”

Kruger said Blake went ahead with his own swearing-in as “a public display of unity” that he believed would “help heal Gwich’in after a period of turbulence.”

Kruger denied there had been a deliberate pattern of excluding representatives of the Aklavik and Inuvik councils from attending GTC board meetings. He added they could have attended the February 3 meeting.

Settlement agreement

Court documents indicate the parties had negotiated a settlement agreement to potentially resolve the matter. The terms of the agreement include that a special assembly be held to swear in Blake as grand chief and that the disputed resolutions from the February 3 meeting be reconsidered at a proper board hearing.

Blake and the directors of the Nihtat and Ehdiitat Gwich’in councils have all signed the agreement. Court documents indicate, however, that at least one other party has said they were not prepared to sign the agreement.

The status of that agreement is currently not clear. It was not addressed at Thursday’s hearing.

Justice Annie Piché is expected to rule on the injunction request on April 16.

---

Correction: April 6, 2025 – 20:48 MT. This article initially stated an appeal of the NWT Supreme Court’s January 14 decision was not filed. In fact, an appeal was filed and then subsequently withdrawn.