The NWT Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from Ron Barlas over a ruling that he engaged in “egregious conduct” related to the misappropriation of millions of dollars as the Denesoline Corporation’s boss.
In July 2024, NWT Supreme Court Justice Karan Shaner ruled that Barlas abused his position to acquire millions of dollars that should have gone to the Łútsël K’é Dene First Nation, for which Denesoline acts as a business arm.
Shaner found Barlas had inappropriately moved large sums of cash into companies controlled by his family, misled members of Denesoline’s board of directors, and actively worked to conceal his gains. (Barlas had denied doing so.)
Rather than making most of her decisions through the holding of a trial, Shaner primarily relied on an extensive paper record and arguments by lawyers.
Barlas and his legal team based their appeal in part on the judge’s decision to proceed in that manner.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
They argued the judge had relied on records that contained some errors of fact – which they said a trial could have corrected – and questioned whether the judge had appropriately concluded he was guilty of oppressive conduct.
Lastly, Barlas’ lawyers said they were concerned aspects of Shaner’s decision had inappropriate consequences for ongoing legal action between the First Nation, a law firm and an accountancy firm.
In a verdict issued on Friday, a three-judge appeal panel dismissed all of those concerns.
‘Not inadequate, let alone unfair’
Justices Jack Watson, Jolaine Antonio and Karen Wenckebach said Shaner’s findings couldn’t contaminate the other ongoing proceedings in the way Barlas’ lawyers claimed.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
Following a lengthy analysis, they also found that Shaner had correctly reached conclusions through a “documentary process,” without relying on a trial.
“The appellants’ challenges devolve to objections to the conclusions reached,” the appeals panel wrote, “and do not render her decision to proceed by way of a documentary process inadequate, let alone unfair.”
More: Read the decision in full
The appeals court backed up the legal analysis leading to Shaner’s finding that Barlas had unduly paid himself large sums – above and beyond his agreed salary and benefits – for acts like bringing business to Denesoline.
Both Shaner and the appeal judges said attracting business was his job and he “was already paid for that.”
There had been “no error of fact or law in the finding of oppression,” the appeals panel concluded.
