Case Watch for September 2016

 FROM OUR PUBLICATIONS DESK

Case Watch

The following decisions came across our desk over the past month:

Crown’s duty to consult & the constitutional competence of the NEB

Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (National Energy Board), 2016 FCA 219: The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a statutory appeal from three interlocutory decisions of the National Energy Board (NEB) with respect to the Trans Mountain Pipeline proposal. Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) challenged the NEB’s determination that the application for the project was sufficiently complete to proceed with an assessment and public hearing, a determination that included a listing and scoping of factors to be considered during the assessment, and an order detailing the steps and deadlines governing the assessment. While TWN raised complex arguments with regards to the NEB’s obligation to either discharge or assess Crown consultations, among others, the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal largely on preliminary issues. The Court held that none of the challenged decisions were final and TWN ought to have first raised its concerns before the NEB itself rather than proceeding directly to the Court of Appeal. While the Court declined to intervene with respect to the Crown’s duty to consult at this stage, it did so without prejudice to TWN’s ability to challenge the final decisions of the Governor in Council on consultation for this project.

Modern treaty signatory added as defendant in Aboriginal rights case –

Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 BCSC 1660: The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed an application from Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) to be added as a defendant in an action brought by Cowichan Tribes and others for declarations of Aboriginal rights and title in what is now the City of Richmond. While Cowichan’s claims overlap with TFN’s territory, as defined in its modern treaty, Cowichan argued against joinder on the basis that its claims are narrowly defined and do not overlap with any TFN lands under its treaty. The Court accepted that TFN’s rights to the portion of its territory in conflict with Cowichan’s claims are largely consultative, but held that these are still section 35 rights to be accorded recognition. These rights were also sufficient to provide TFN with a direct interest in the litigation. TFN’s rights under the agreement fluctuate depending on the land-holding status of the area underpinning these rights, and the litigation could result in the introduction of an extra party into negotiations over fishing areas that TFN has rights to under its agreement.

Property taxation on reserve and statutory interpretation –

Musqueam Indian Band v Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review), 2016 SCC 36: The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal from Musqueam Nation against a 2011 property taxation assessment of a golf and country club on its reserve land being calculated on the basis of its use as a golf and country club, as opposed to its value as residential land. The reserve land in question was surrendered in 1957 for lease to the golf and country club and its value for property tax purposes was consistently assessed on the basis of the restrictions under that lease from that point on. In 1996, however, Musqueam amended its property assessment bylaw to reduce the types of restrictions that an assessor could consider to “any restriction placed on the use of the land and improvements by the band” (emphasis added). In 2011, Musqueam challenged the consideration of the restrictions under the lease in a property tax assessment on the basis that the lease was negotiated between the Crown and the golf and country club and its restrictions were therefore not imposed “by the band”. Musqueam also argued that the 1996 amendment was made to account for its newly recognized land management powers under the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management. Both arguments were rejected.

Determination between competing 60’s scoop class actions –

Thompson v Manitoba (Minister of Justice), 2016 MBQB 169: The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench exercised its discretion to permit one of two class actions to proceed with respect to individuals affected by the 60’s scoop in Manitoba (Meeches v Canada). It also stayed the other proposed class action (Thompson v Manitoba), issued a declaration that no further proposed 60’s scoop class actions are to be commenced in Manitoba on the same facts without leave, and granted leave to amend Meeches to ensure it covers the class members from Thompson. While Thompson was filed first, counsel did not take steps to seek certification in a timely manner. Meeches was also framed more consistently with the Brown case that has already been certified in Ontario with respect to 60’s scoop survivors there.

Addressing FASD in context to Gladue factors –

R v Drysdale, 2016 SKQB 312: The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench extensively considered the Gladue factors and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) of an Aboriginal man in sentencing him for assault and threatening to use a weapon, relying on a full Gladue report and four witnesses for this purpose. The Court held that in the circumstances, a “needs based” as opposed to a retributive sentence was appropriate. The Court held that “a Gladue impacted individual affected by FASD has a reduced moral and legal responsibility” with respect to actions such as those underlying the offence in this case, which exhibited impulsiveness and a disconnect between actions and consequences common among FASD affected individuals. The Court also considered the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 34, which focuses on better addressing the needs of offenders with FASD, in crafting its sentence.

First Nations advisory organization declared provincial entity –

Treaty 8 Tribal Association v Barley, 2016 FC 1090: The Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review of a federal adjudicator’s conclusion that the Treaty 8 Tribal Association was a federal undertaking for the purpose of the application of the Canada Labour Code. The adjudicator was held to have failed to apply the functional test to determine whether the nature, operations and habitual activities of the Association fell under the head of power of “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”. The Association provides advisory, administrative, advocacy and other services to its members and other First Nations, but does not provide services under the Indian Act nor within the realm of First Nations governance or reserve land. The habitual activities of the Association did not fall under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act either.

Defamation by way of band council resolution –

Hazel v Rainy River First Nations, 2016 ONSC 5875: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the defendant First Nations’ motion for summary judgment and instead allowed summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in a defamation claim. The defendant First Nations described the plaintiffs as “undesirables” in a band council resolution (BCR), declared them trespassers on its territory, and resolved that they were to be removed and charged as trespassers if they were found on its territory. The Court held that placing the BCR into a book available to community members was a sufficient act of publication for the purposes of sustaining an action for defamation regardless of whether anyone had looked at the BCR in question. The Court also held that there was no dispute that describing the plaintiffs as “undesirables” was defamatory. Arguments with respect to qualified privilege, issue estoppel and abuse of process were all rejected.

Severance of criminal charges in context to constitutional challenge –

R c Rice, 2016 QCCS 4610 (in English): The Superior Court of Quebec severed criminal charges against three men from Kahnawake in relation to the alleged sale of tobacco to non-Aboriginals without collecting and remitting the retail consumer tax from these sales to the federal and provincial authorities. The defendants raised a constitutional challenge in this case involving various rights asserted on behalf of the Mohawk Nation, including rights of self-determination and internal sovereignty, a right to harvest, produce and sell tobacco products, and a right to exemption from taxation under s 87 of the Indian Act. The Court held that there was no reasonable likelihood that the s 35 rights claimed, assuming they were proven, would be unjustifiably infringed by the defendants’ obligations to collect and remit consumer taxes from non-Aboriginal customers. The Court also held that there was no reasonable likelihood of the s 87 exemption being successfully invoked against the defendants’ obligations to collect and remit taxes from non-Aboriginal customers. The Court was unable, however, to conclude that there was no reasonable likelihood of the defendants being able to prove that s 87 exempted them from the imposition of duties on tobacco products. The two charges related to the last argument were severed from the others and the Court ordered for a trial to proceed separately with respect to the charges that were not implicated by this argument.

Metis Settlement’s jurisdiction to specify membership requirements –

Kikino Metis Settlement v Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal (Membership Panel), 2016 ABCA 260: The Alberta Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal setting aside a membership decision by the Kikino Metis Settlement. Kikino has passed a bylaw that appears to provide it with discretion to reject an application for membership from a candidate who is otherwise eligible to apply under the Metis Settlements Act and meets the minimum standards for admission under the Act. An otherwise eligible applicant who was rejected for reasons not set out in the Act successfully challenged her rejection before the Appeal Tribunal. The Court of Appeal will allow an appeal to proceed on two questions: 1) whether a Metis settlement can establish membership criteria that is more onerous than the minimum standards under the Act; and 2) if so, whether the criteria applied to the applicant rejected in this case was a lawful exercise of Kikino’s jurisdiction under its membership bylaw.

Placement of Métis child with non-Aboriginal adoptive parents –

LM v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2016 BCCA 367: The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals related to the intention of the Director of Child, Family and Community Services to place a Métis child from British Columbia in the care of a non-Aboriginal couple in Ontario that has already adopted two of the child’s siblings. The appellants have been the child’s foster parents since two days after her birth and one of the appellants is also of Métis heritage. The first appeal was dismissed primarily because the appellants were found to be seeking an adoption order for which there was no basis in the statutory scheme. The Court of Appeal rejected an argument that the lower court had not paid adequate attention to the child’s Métis heritage, concluding that this was not relevant to the Director’s decision that the appellants were challenging on judicial review. The Court of Appeal rejected the second appeal on the basis that the Charter arguments that the appellants wished to raise were correctly found to be subject to res judicata and there was an insufficient evidentiary record to decide these argument on appeal in any event.

Stays of proceedings for unreasonable delay (section 11(b)) –

R c Gilpin, 2016 QCCQ 9459 (in French only): The Court of Quebec allowed an application to stay criminal proceedings against two men in the judicial district of Abitibi on the basis that delays in these proceedings had violated their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s 11(b) of the Charter. The Court applied the analysis recently mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jordan to conclude that the delays in each applicant’s case were beyond the presumptive ceiling for reasonable delay, and there were insufficient exceptional circumstances to rebut this presumption of unreasonableness. The Court acknowledged past jurisprudence where the unique circumstances of communities in northern Quebec were found to justify trials taking longer, but concluded that these circumstances will no longer be considered “exceptional” for the purposes of applying s 11(b).

R c Rice, 2016 QCCS 4659 (in English): The Superior Court of Quebec allowed a s 11(b) application to stay criminal proceedings against three men from Kahnawake on charges relating to the alleged sale of tobacco to non-Aboriginals without collecting and remitting the retail consumer tax from these sales to the federal and provincial tax authorities. The Court held that even prior to the Supreme Court’s recent Jordan decision, the delays in this case would have been sufficient to ground an application for a stay of proceedings under s 11(b). While the defendants had presented a tardy constitutional challenge to the charges against them, this had no bearing on any delays they faced for the purpose of the s 11(b) analysis.

Stays of proceedings pending appellate decision on Métis rights –

Québec v Savard, 2016 QCCS 4391 (in French only): The Superior Court of Quebec allowed an application to stay proceedings in which Quebec is seeking to evict the applicant from a hunting camp. The applicant’s sole defense rests on his assertion that he is a member of the Métis community of Domaine du Roy and Seigneurie de Mingan and his community has Métis hunting rights that are protected under s 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Another member of this same community, Ghislain Corneau, was unsuccessful in defending himself from a parallel application for eviction from the hunting camp before the Superior Court of Quebec early last year (see Québec c Corneau). In Corneau, the Superior Court ruled that the Métis community to which Mr. Corneau and Mr. Savard belong does not meet the Supreme Court of Canada’s Powley test. Mr. Corneau has since appealed that decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal and an appellate decision remains outstanding. The proceedings against Mr. Savard have been stayed until the Court of Appeal renders its judgment in Corneau.

Note that parallel applications were granted in two other proceedings: Québec v Bouchard, 2016 QCCS 4392 & Québec v Desbiens, 2016 QCCS 4393

Case Watch for August 2016

 FROM OUR PUBLICATIONS DESK

Case Watch

The following decisions came across our desk over the past month:

Crown’s duty to consult in multi-stage permitting process

Listuguj Mi’gmaq First Nation v New Brunswick, 2016 NBQB 138: The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed an application for judicial review to quash three provincial approvals granted to Chaleur Terminals Inc for the construction of a rail terminal and transfer system in Belledune, New Brunswick. The applicants argued that these approvals were issued without any meaningful consultation or accommodation of the Aboriginal and treaty rights and title of three Mi’gmaq communities along the Gaspé peninsula of Quebec. The Court rejected this application on the basis that the Crown had met the low level of consultation that it had pre-determined to be adequate for this project in 2014. The Crown first conducted its own assessment of the appropriate level of consultation in July 2014 and issued a certificate for the project to proceed at that time. The applicants never challenged those 2014 decisions and were now out of time to do so. The application was allowed to proceed with respect to three approvals from 2015 that involved excavation, the clearing of the site, and the installation of oil tanks. However, there was no new information brought to the province’s attention that would justify deeper consultation on the 2015 approvals and the province met the low level of consultation mandated by its 2014 determination.

Use of actuarial risk assessment tools for Aboriginal offenders

Canada v Ewert, 2016 FCA 203: The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal from a Federal Court decision that concluded that the use of certain actuarial tools for assessing recidivism and psychopathy was unreliable with respect to Aboriginal inmates, and thereby unjustifiably infringed upon their section 7 rights and breached the statutory obligations of the Correctional Service of Canada. The Federal Court had held that Mr. Ewert was not required “to establish definitively” that the assessment tools were biased, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. It allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr. Ewert was required to prove on a balance of probabilities that the actuarial tools generate or were likely to generate false results for Aboriginal inmates, and failed to do so.

Gladue factors in sentencing –

R v Okimaw, 2016 ABCA 246: The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal of an Aboriginal offender on the grounds that, among other things, the sentencing judge failed to give weight to specific Gladue factors. The Court of Appeal used this decision as an opportunity to provide a “practical framework” for the consideration of Gladue factors. It was not enough for the sentencing judge to merely acknowledge “the existence of systemic factors”; the judge had a duty to consider how unique systemic and background factors played a role in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts. The Court of Appeal found that this necessary context was effectively absent from, or at least given insufficient weight in the decision under review. The Court of Appeal also clarified that it is not incumbent on a Gladue report writer to explain the impact of Gladue factors on moral blameworthiness. It is the sentencing judge that has the duty to carry out an “individualized assessment” of Gladue factors and this duty cannot be delegated. In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the impact of Mr. Okimaw’s Gladue factors were “largely self-explanatory”.

R v Alec, 2016 BCCA 347: The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal of an Aboriginal offender who was sentenced without the aid of a Gladue report. A report was allowed as fresh evidence on appeal. However, the Court of Appeal held that a “formal” Gladue report was not necessary for sentencing Aboriginal offenders. The Court held that the sentencing judge was clearly aware of Mr. Alec’s Aboriginal circumstances and his “disconnection” from his First Nation, and it was open to the sentencing judge to assume that Mr. Alec would not participate in the preparation of a report given his previous reluctance to do so.

R v Sateana, 2016 NUCJ 20: The Nunavut Court of Justice considered Gladue factors in sentencing an Aboriginal man for manslaughter. The Court stated that the systemic factors that influence criminality in Nunavut are well known and well documented, including the inter-generational impact of residential schools, over-crowded and sub-standard housing, poverty, high rates of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and high rates of alcohol and substance abuse. However, the Court held that a Gladue analysis is something “which this court is called upon to give effect to on a regular basis, but which it is unable to implement in any meaningful way”. While Mr. Sateana had appeared before the Court many times before the events leading to his manslaughter conviction, the Court “would have been unable to craft sentences which addressed his deep seated issues and alcohol addiction because the territory has no treatment or rehabilitation facilities and few counselling and mental health services.” Mr. Sateana was sentenced to 13 years incarceration.

Gladue factors in relation to solitary confinement –

Hamm v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ABQB 440: The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench allowed an application for habeas corpus from three self-represented inmates placed in solitary confinement, two of whom were Aboriginal. The Court ordered the release of these three inmates from segregation as the institution had failed to provide them with the high level of procedural fairness they were owed before being placed into solitary confinement. Among other concerns, the Court held that “given the potential rehabilitation benefits and other benefits of access to [A]boriginal spiritual and cultural programs, each [A]boriginal inmate should have had a Gladue type assessment of what placements would be appropriate.” The Court also concluded that it was “unreasonable for a correctional institution to deny transparency in relation to its decisions concerning whether, and how, and where, [A]boriginal offenders should be further deprived of liberty”.

Gladue factors & pledges of on-reserve property in bail hearing –

R v Hope, 2016 ONCA 648: The Ontario Court of Appeal granted an Aboriginal man release from custody pending a new trial on charges that include second degree murder. The Court of Appeal took note of the various contexts in which it has previously applied Gladue principles, including bail hearings, and stated that Gladue principles informed certain aspects of its analysis in this case. Ultimately, the Court concluded that detention pending appeal was not necessary in the public interest in this case. The Court also dismissed the Crown’s concerns with the fact that the individuals offering sureties and pledges against the equity in their homes on Mr. Hope’s behalf were of Aboriginal descent and lived on reserve. Section 89 of the Indian Act protects property on reserve from being subject to a charge by anyone other than an “Indian” or a band. The Court of Appeal held that this should not interfere with an Aboriginal person’s ability to secure release from detention, and what mattered was that these individuals expressed a willingness to pledge the “not insignificant” equity in their properties, not whether the Crown could execute against those properties.

Extinguishment of Aboriginal rights –

Québec (Procureure générale) c Lachapelle, 2016 QCCS 3961 (in French only): The Quebec Superior Court granted an application to evict two individuals from a hunting camp in the Eastmain River basin in northern Quebec. One of the respondents was a member of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake and asserted that the hunting camp was incidental to an Aboriginal right to hunt. However, the respondent failed to provide any evidence in support of a site-specific hunting right in the area in question. The Court noted that the camp was located approximately 1200km away from the respondent’s reserve and fell within Cree territory recognized under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). The Court also held that even if the respondent had proven a site-specific right in the area where the camp is located, the Court could not recognize it in light of the extinguishment clause in the JBNQA. The respondent declined the opportunity to challenge the JBQNA’s constitutionality. The Court did note, however, that the JBQNA’s constitutionality is at issue in another proceeding before the Superior Court.

Exceptions to the tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act –

Bell v Canada, 2016 TCC 175: The Tax Court of Canada dismissed an appeal from tax assessments based on the tax exemption for personal property situated on reserve (section 87 of the Indian Act). The appeal concerned whether the exemption could be applied to annual bonuses received by a status “Indian”, Ms. Bell, from a company she owned and operated with her non-status spouse. Ms. Bell worked out of an office located on reserve. Ms. Bell received regular bi-weekly pay from the company as well as the balance of the company’s annual income as year end bonuses. The Minister allowed her to rely on the tax exemption for her regular pay but not for her year end bonuses. The Tax Court upheld the Minister’s decision on the basis that there was no substantive connection between the bonuses and the reserve land where Ms. Bell was working. The Tax Court also found that the bonuses exceeded reasonable remuneration and were therefore abusive of the tax exemption.

Crowns added as parties in private law action involving Aboriginal rights –

Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc, 2016 BCSC 1474: The BC Supreme Court allowed an application to add both the federal and provincial Crowns as defendants to a tort action against Rio Tinto Alcan in relation to impacts on the Nechako River and its fishery resources. The action is premised in part on asserted Aboriginal rights and title. The Court noted that the plaintiffs acknowledged that the consequences of this “major and complex case”, which would define the intersection between Aboriginal rights and tort law, may be huge. This may warrant inclusion of the Crown on its own. Further, the plaintiffs had already formally invited the Crown to participate through the Notice of Constitutional Challenge they issued in order to challenge the applicability of certain statutes. Under British Columbia’s Water Act, the province also asserts ownership over the water under dispute in this action, thereby warranting its involvement. Finally, the Court held that even where a formal declaration of Aboriginal title is not sought in the pleadings, the federal and provincial Crowns are still necessary parties to the determination of issues relating to Aboriginal title.

Injunction against First Nation’s interference with use of road –

Revolution Infrastructure Inc v Lytton First Nation, 2016 BCSC 1562: The BC Supreme Court allowed an application from Revolution Infrastructure for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Lytton First Nation from prohibiting or interfering with its use of an access road and ranch on which it operates a composting facility. Lytton First Nation asserts Aboriginal rights and title to the valley in which the facility and road are located and asserts a right to control access on this basis, as well as the basis that the road crosses its reserve lands. Lytton has enacted a band bylaw requiring Revolution to obtain a permit to use the road. The Court held that there are several serious questions to be tried in this case, including the nature of Aboriginal title and whether the band bylaw was validly enacted. The Court also held that interference with Revolution’s access to the road would result in irreparable harm. Finally, the Court held that the balance of convenience favoured Revolution as Lytton’s actions had disrupted the status quo of its use of the road without interference since 2009, the road had been used by the public for a significant period before then, and a facilitation process was in place that could potentially address the issues between the parties.

No jurisdiction for provincial tribunal with respect to on-reserve clinic –

Cahoose v Ulkatcho Indian Band, 2016 BCHRT 114: The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint against the Ulkatcho Indian Band and others on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The complainant had been employed in the band’s healthcare clinic on reserve. The tribunal held that there was no dispute over the proper approach for determining the limits of its jurisdiction. Instead, the key issue was which entity the so-called “functional test” needed to be applied to. The complainant argued that the First Nations Health Authority administered the clinic. However, the tribunal found no evidence of the Authority acting as a service provider. Instead, it concluded that the band was the employer of the clinic’s staff and the entity providing medical services on the reserve. Finally, the tribunal concluded that the band’s operations were seen to be federal when the functional test was applied.

Jurisdiction of self-governing First Nation tribunal –

Kwanlin Dün First Nation v Kwanlin Dün First Nation Judicial Council, 2016 YKSC 35: The Yukon Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Kwanlin Dün First Nation (KDFN) against two decisions of its Judicial Council that set aside its termination of two tenancy agreements. KDFN argued that the Judicial Council had no jurisdiction to decide matters relating to landlord and tenancy issues since KDFN has not enacted any laws on this subject matter and provincial legislation therefore applies. The Court found this dispute raised a question of true jurisdiction that must be reviewed on a standard of correctness. It held that the Judicial Council, by virtue of KDFN’s Constitution and its Judicial Council Act, had the power to review administrative decisions by the KDFN, including those it makes in a landlord and tenant context, to ensure its Constitution and laws are complied with. The Court went on to conclude that the Judicial Council had not exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on matters of procedural fairness and KDFN’s constitutional values in context to the tenancy disputes at issue. The Judicial Council did not rule on specific landlord-tenant issues.

Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement –

Fontaine v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 MBQB 159: The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench allowed a Request for Directions with respect to a claim that an individual was wrongfully denied compensation under the IRSSA for sexual abuse at a residential school. The adjudicator accepted that a nun grabbed the claimant’s genitals while he was at residential school, but was not satisfied that the act had a “sexual purpose”. This decision was upheld on review and re-review. The Court found that it had the jurisdiction to review the re-review adjudicator’s decision on a standard of reasonableness. It went on to conclude that the first adjudicator’s interpretation of the IRSSA as requiring a “sexual purpose” for sexual touching to be compensable was fundamentally inconsistent with the plain language of the IRSSA and with the criminal law jurisprudence that the adjudicator purported to apply. It was therefore unreasonable for the re-review adjudicator to uphold this decision. The Court sent the claim back to be reconsidered in accordance with its reasons.

Fontaine v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ONSC 5359: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the results of an investigation into the legal services provided by Douglas J. Keshen and his former law firm with respect to claims under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA). The report resulting from the investigation was “largely a vindication for Mr. Keshen”. However, there were two exceptions to this: 1) Mr. Keshen was found to have facilitated third party loans on the basis of a promise to repay the loans from IRSSA awards, which is prohibited under the IRSSA; and 2) Mr. Keshen’s practice of reporting to clients orally rather than in writing did not fully meet the Law Society of Upper Canada’s guidelines for lawyers acting on IRSSA files. No costs were ordered for either party and Mr. Keshen was not ordered to pay the costs of the investigation.