Date: 20041018
Dockets: T-66-86A and T-66-86B
Citation: 2004 FC 1436
Toronto, Ontario, October 18th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
SAWRIDGE BAND
Respondent
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA
NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
and
TSUU T'INA FIRST NATION
Respondent
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA
NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
REASONS FOR ORDERS AND ORDERS
A. NATURE OF MOTIONS
[1] I have two motions before me brought by the Crown. They both relate to the Pre-Trial Order of Mr. Justice Hugessen dated March 26, 2004 and, in my view, should be disposed of together.
[2] In the first motion, which I heard in Edmonton on October 1, 2004, the Crown sought a variation of Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order and an extension of time within which to serve the Crown's rebuttal expert reports under s. 6 of that Pre-Trial Order.
[3] The first motion, however, raised two separate issues that should not be conflated. The first issue is whether Dr. von Gernet, the Crown's expert, should be given more time (the relevant deadline in Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial-Order is October 29, 2004) to file rebuttal expert evidence on four of the expert reports served by the Plaintiffs on July 16, 2004. The second issue is whether, as part of his rebuttal evidence, Dr. von Gernet should address the Plaintiff's oral history evidence and whether he should be allowed to do this at a time during the trial after those oral histories have been entered by the Plaintiffs.
[4] The second motion by the Crown, which was heard in Edmonton on October 7, 2004, was for an order to strike the Plaintiffs "Witness List and Will Say Statements" for failure to comply with Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order of March 26, 2004 and directing that the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to call any of the proposed witnesses at the trial.
[5] Both motions have serious implications for the preparatory period leading up to the trial and for the conduct of the trial itself which is due to begin on January 10, 2005.
B. JUSTICE HUGESSEN'S ORDER
[6] Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order of March 26, 2004, deals with a range of pre-trial matters. However, as regards the two Crown motions before me, I believe the following are the most significant provisions:
5. All expert reports for use at trial are to be served by July 15, 2004.
6. Rebuttal expert reports (which shall be limited to answering or contradicting any expert reports produced by others) are to be served by October 29, 2004.
7. Any other expert reports may only be produced by leave of the Court obtained on prior motion.
8. Any person desiring to lead oral history evidence shall serve a detailed summary thereof no later than June 30, 2004.
9. All persons intending to lead evidence at trial (including oral history evidence) shall serve witness lists and "will say" statements (including language if other than English and name of interpreter if known) on or before September 15, 2004.
C. THE FIRST MOTION
1. Extension of Time to Rebut Expert Reports
[7] Paragraph 6 of Justice Hugessen's order clearly contemplates that rebuttal expert reports will be served by October 29, 2004 and that such rebuttals "shall be limited to answering or contradicting any expert reports produced by others ...."
[8] In his affidavit evidence, Dr. von Gernet provides a variety of reasons as to why he is unable to compile rebuttal reports by October 29, 2004 for the four expert reports that come within his field of expertise. He says he was surprised by the number of reports served by the Plaintiffs, their variance from the expert report submitted for the first trial, the voluminous nature of the reports and the significant number of citations that will require additional research. Generally speaking, as regards the four reports in question, I accept Dr. von Gernet's evidence of surprise and the difficulty he would have in responding by October 29, 2004.
[9] On this issue, I believe that the Crown has satisfied the test for a variation pursuant to Rule 399 and that there is a change of circumstances that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered sooner, and that if the new matter had been known it would probably have required more time for the rebuttal response than Justice Hugessen gave. See Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd. v. Cali (The), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1579 (T.D.); Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., [2001] F.C.J. No. 1214 (T.D.).
[10] The difficult issue is to decide how much longer Dr. von Gernet should have to compile his rebuttal reports. His estimate is that he will need "until at least the end of January, 2005 and at most to the end of March, 2005 to prepare my rebuttal report addressing all four of the aforementioned Plaintiffs' expert reports."
[11] This causes a problem because the trial has been set to commence on January 10, 2005. The Crown has not at this stage requested a postponement of the trial date to permit Dr. von Gernet to complete his rebuttal reports. Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order clearly contemplates that the rebuttal expert reports will be completed and served well in advance of the trial. The needs of the Plaintiffs also require, in my view, that they will receive the Crown's expert rebuttal reports sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the trial so that they can respond and prepare. However, before the timing problems of this issue can be addressed, the Court also needs to look at the other issues raised in both motions.
2. Oral Histories and Expert Evidence
[12] Dr. von Gernet also says in his affidavit that he has been retained by the Crown "to provide a written opinion in which I analyse any oral histories or oral traditions tendered by the Plaintiffs in accordance with the principles I have previously set out and which were adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Benoit v. Canada, [2003] F.C.J. No. 923."
[13] Dr. von Gernet says he cannot do his work in this regard because the detailed summaries required by s. 8 of Justice Hugessen's order and delivered by the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2004 are inadequate for a variety of reasons:
a. there is no indication who prepared them and they contain anthropological nomenclature, inferences drawn from unknown data, and conclusions which generally cannot be derived from oral histories or traditions;
b. there is no indication of the sources of the evidence or the conditions under which it was collected;
c. the summaries suggest that there is a larger body of oral history evidence extant and producible, albeit not yet in the public domain; and
d. the deficiencies mean that the relevant oral histories or oral traditions are not available to Dr. von Gernet for assessment.
[14] Dr. von Gernet is of the view that "a comprehensive rebuttal of expert reports should take into account any oral histories or oral traditions and not just written documents and opinions."
[15] He also makes the following point:
Based on my experience in other cases, actual testimony often differs from "summaries" or "will say statements"; hence, a proper, full rebuttal should ideally follow the presentation of the viva voce testimony of the elders or other witnesses who relate oral histories or traditions.
[16] For these reasons, the Crown seeks leave for Dr. von Gernet to file his rebuttal expert reports (or, alternatively, a supplemental rebuttal expert report) on oral histories referred to in evidence at trial at a time to be fixed at the conclusion of the Plaintiffs' calling of oral history evidence.
[17] In my view, the relationship between Dr. von Gernet's rebuttal reports and the Plaintiffs' oral history evidence is a new and distinct issue that does not appear to have been dealt with by Justice Hugessen.
[18] Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order contemplates a scheme whereby there is a clear distinction between expert reports and oral history evidence.
[19] Paragraph 6 of the Pre-Trial Order specifically limits rebuttal expert reports to contradicting what appears in the expert reports filed by others.
[20] If the Plaintiffs' expert reports deal with oral history evidence, then Dr. von Gernet can clearly address that issue in his rebuttal reports.
[21] However, if the expert reports served by the Plaintiffs do not address oral history evidence then the Crown has noting to rebut in this regard.
[22] If the Crown expected that the Plaintiffs' expert reports would deal with oral histories, but has now discovered that they do not, then Justice Hugessen's order contemplates under para. 7 that any party can apply to the Court for leave to file an expert report. The Crown has not done this. I suspect this is because the Crown is strongly of the view that there is little point in having Dr. von Gernet comment upon oral history evidence until that evidence is heard. In this regard the Crown relies upon the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Benoit.
[23] It is important to review what the Federal Court of Appeal actually said on this issue in Benoit. In my view, the two most relevant paragraphs are as follows:
112. In my view, the approach suggested by Dr. von Gernet to oral history evidence is undeniably a proper approach and is entirely in line with the remarks made by McLachlin C.J. at paragraph 38 of Mitchell, supra, where she indicated that evidence adduced to support Aboriginal claims should not be weighed in a manner that "fundamentally contravenes the principles of evidence law ...".
113. I agree with Dr. von Gernet that oral history evidence cannot be accepted, per se, as factual, unless it has undergone the critical scrutiny that courts and experts, whether they be historians, archeologists, social scientists, apply to the various types of evidence which they have to deal with. My specific purpose in referring to Dr. von Gernet's Report is to emphasize the fact that the Trial Judge ought to have approached the oral history evidence with caution. In Mitchell, supra, for example, the Trial Judge and the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the oral history evidence of Grand Chief Mitchell which, McLachlin C.J. points out at paragraph 35 of her Reasons, was confirmed by archeological and historical evidence. In other words, depending on the nature of the oral history at issue, corroboration may well be necessary to render it reliable.
[24] In my view, the Federal Court of Appeal in Benoit is referring to Dr. von Gernet's "approach" to oral history evidence. The Court is not endorsing a procedure that would allow Dr. von Gernet to first hear oral history evidence at the trial and then provide his view of the reliability of that specific evidence to the Court.
[25] In the Plaintiffs' cross-examination of Dr. von Gernet on his affidavit in this motion, he was asked for specific occasions when he had been allowed to follow the procedure suggested by the Crown. In my opinion, his answers were not helpful. He could not recall whether he had been allowed to do it as a result of agreement between the parties or as a result of a court order. If the Crown believes this to be an important issue, it should have produced some real authority for the procedure suggested by Dr. von Gernet. The Court cannot act upon the incomplete recollection of a witness. Similarly, at the hearing of this matter on October 1, 2004, I asked Crown counsel for specific examples of the Court allowing the procedure suggested. Crown counsel could not bring me to any such examples.
[26] This is an extremely important issue. I see a significant difference between the Federal Court of Appeal in Benoit endorsing Dr. von Gernet's "approach" to oral history evidence and his being allowed to comment upon the reliability of the oral history evidence of a particular witness after that evidence has been given.
[27] I agree with the Plaintiffs that the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear in R. v. Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223 that "the ultimate conclusion as to the credibility or truthfulness of a particular witness is for the trier of fact, and it is not the proper subject of expert opinion...."
[28] I am well aware that the concerns raised by the Crown and Dr. von Gernet himself go well beyond assessing "the credibility or truthfulness of a particular witness" and that it is not their intent to usurp the Court's role in this regard. Their concern, to quote Dr. von Gernet's words as quoted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Benoit at para. 111 is to "distinguish between what people believe might have happened and what on the weight of combined evidence may actually have happened."
[29] The Court is aware of the difficulties of assessing the value and weight to be given to oral history evidence as outlined in Benoit. If the Crown is concerned about these matters it can apply to the Court to introduce an expert report to that effect. The Plaintiffs will no doubt resist such an application or, if it is granted, require leave to serve their own expert evidence on this issue. No such application is presently before me and the Court cannot deal with the issue of expert opinion on oral history evidence as part of an application involving rebuttal evidence for the Plaintiffs' expert reports that do not raise oral history methodologies. My view is that it will be beneficial for the Court to have expert opinion concerning the methodologies for assessing oral history evidence. But, so far, neither side has seen fit to produce any such expert opinion.
[30] As regards the Crown's view that oral histories given at trial often vary significantly from summaries, this may well have been the case in previous disputes but it is speculative at this stage to decide that the same problem will occur in this claim. If it does, then the matter can be dealt with at trial. It is not a justification for a pre-emptive order that Dr. von Gernet should first of all hear actual testimony before he completes his expert rebuttal evidence.
[31] In conclusion on this matter, if the Crown wishes to introduce expert evidence on the appropriate treatment of oral history evidence it should not do this under the pretext that it was intended that this should be done as part of the expert rebuttal reports referred to in para. 6 of Justice Hugessen's order.
[32] Similarly, if the Crown believes that the oral history summaries provided by the Plaintiffs are inadequate for the reasons stated by Dr. von Gernet, then those inadequacies need to be dealt with directly and not by way of subsuming them in Dr. von Gernet' rebuttal reports. Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order makes it very clear that expert rebuttal reports "shall be limited to answering or contradicting any expert reports produced by others ... ." The oral history summaries produced by the Plaintiffs to date under para. 8 are not, in my view, expert reports as that term is used by Justice Hugessen in his Pre-Trial Order or in any jurisprudence that has been produced to date.
D. THE SECOND MOTION
[33] The Crown's second motion which was heard on October 7, 2004, raises the adequacy of the Plaintiffs' "Witness List and Will Say Statements" and their failure to comply with Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order of March 26, 2004.
[34] It is significant that neither this motion nor the first motion seeks to strike the detailed oral history summaries already provided by the Plaintiffs under para. 8 of Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order, even though the Crown says they are inadequate.
[35] By and large, I accept that the witness lists and the will says produced by the Plaintiffs to date are not adequate and do not accord with what Justice Hugessen had in mind when he made the Pre-Trial Order of March 26, 2004. What is more, I believe that the Plaintiffs know this. Mr. Henderson hinted as much at the trial management meeting held in Edmonton on September 17, 2004.
[36] If I examine the whole context in which Justice Hugessen's ordered witness lists and will say statements on or before September 15, 2004, it seems clear to me that what he had in mind was both the trial process itself and the needs of both sides to have sufficient time for preparation in the period leading up to the trial.
[37] The Plaintiffs argue in this motion that para. 9 of Justice Hugessen's order does not spell out certain things and that is merely refers to witness lists and will say statements. However, in my view, it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that Justice Hugessen should have spelled out in detail what was required in the circumstances. I believe that both sides know what is needed to allow for adequate preparation and effective advocacy at the trial in this particular case. Both sides know the important role that oral histories, in particular, could play. The Plaintiffs say they are concerned that the Crown intends to use Dr. von Garnet to assess their oral histories and usurp the role of the Court in deciding what weight, if any, should be given to those oral histories. I have already dealt with that issue under the first motion. The Crown has not convinced the Court to date that Dr. von Garnet should assess specific oral histories and present the Court with an opinion on their reliability and value as evidence. Expert opinion on appropriate methodologies for assessment of oral histories (not yet provided by either side) is one thing; expert opinion on the evidentiary value of a particular witnesses testimony is, in my mind, quite another. I do appreciate, however, that the Crown will require the input of its expert in preparing to deal with the oral history evidence presented at trial. Hence, the Crown requires adequate witness lists and will says for both the oral history witnesses and the lay witnesses so that this preparatory work can be done.
[38] The witness lists and will say statements produces by the Plaintiffs to date are not in compliance with Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order and are not adequate for preparation and effective trial procedure for a variety of reasons, including the following:
a. They are not individualized. The witness lists need to show who the Plaintiffs actually intend to call, how she or he is in a position to give the evidence, and what each individual witness will say. A large pool of potential witnesses and a list of topics that will be addressed at trial by various groups does not permit adequate preparation and effective trial procedure;
b. The language used by each witness to be called is not identified. Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order specifically says, in para. 9, that the witness list and will say statements have to include "language if other than English and name of interpreter if known." This is information that is obviously required for each witness;
c. They provide a list of topics that the Plaintiffs intend to address rather than a synopsis of what each individual witness will say. Such a synopsis does not need to use the actual words of each witness, but it does need to contain sufficient detail to allow for challenges on the basis of relevancy and otherwise, and for effective preparation for cross-examination. For instance, it is not sufficient to say that evidence will be given concerning the Plaintiffs' laws, customs and practices or their way of life. The will says should indicate what a particular witness will say those laws, customs and practices are, and what the way of life relied upon actually entails;
d. Those will say statements that pertain to oral histories should identify the actual past practices, customs and traditions of the community in question, as well as relevant interactions with other groups.
[39] Having decided that the witness lists and will says provided by the Plaintiffs to date do not comply with Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order, the Court needs to consider an appropriate remedy. This requires some consideration of the history of this law suit and the consequences of non-compliance at this stage in the process when the trial is only a few months away.
[40] The Crown urges that the Plaintiffs' witness lists and will say statements should be struck and that the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to call any of their proposed witnesses.
[41] It is very telling in my view that the Plaintiffs take a hard position that they have complied with para. 9 of Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order. They do not ask for time or suggest ways in which deficiencies in their materials can be remedied. In fact, they now hint at severe practical difficulties if they are asked to provide witness lists and will says that provide the kind of information necessary for trial preparation and effective trial management.
[42] I am extremely disturbed by the fact that, having appeared before Justice Hugessen on these matters, and having been given a deadline of September 15, 2004, the Plaintiffs would then produce a list of approximately 150 potential witnesses, as well as deficient will says, and then suggest to the Court that they now have practical difficulties that do not appear to have been raised with Justice Hugessen before he made his order. If there are practical difficulties then, bearing in mind how long this dispute has been going on, those difficulties must have been known to the Plaintiffs for a considerable period of time.
[43] After years of litigation, case management and strenuous efforts by Justice Hugessen to move this matter to trial, the Plaintiffs have chosen to produce a list of approximately 150 witnesses a mere 4 months before the trial, with no adequate will says that the Crown, the Interveners or the Court can use to organize themselves for trial.
[44] The Plaintiffs are represented by able, experienced and highly articulate counsel. In my view, they cannot help but be aware of the problems that their actions have caused. They assert the importance of the new evidence for their case but have not provided the Crown or the Interveners with the means to prepare for trial. In fact, they have not come up with any suggestions as to how the problems they have caused can be dealt with. They merely allege that they have complied with the Pre-Trial Order and tell the Court it cannot grant the order requested by the Crown:
... any such Order would necessarily constitute an interference with the long established rule permitting a Plaintiff to present its case as it considers appropriate. The jurisprudence is clear that the adversary system confers upon each litigant the absolute right to decide how to proceed with and present its case to the Court ... That rule is particularly apt in the present case where the issues raised are important constitutional issues affecting s. 35 rights of aboriginal people.
[45] The suggestion appears to be that the Plaintiffs cannot, or will not, comply with Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order regarding witness lists and will says and that the Court has no effective remedy in this situation because, each litigant has "an absolute right to decide how to proceed with and present its case to the Court ....".
[46] In my view, the arguments produced by the Plaintiffs to resist compliance with justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order are spurious and disingenuous. No one is trying to interfere with the way the Plaintiffs present their case; the Plaintiffs are merely being asked to recognize the rights of the other parties to this litigation to prepare themselves adequately for this trial in accordance with the scheme established by Justice Hugessen' order and to cooperate in ensuring the most just, expeditious and least expensive determination of this proceeding occurs on its merits. The Plaintiffs appear to think they can merely do as they wish. The history of this file is replete with warnings. In an order dated March 6, 2002, Justice Hugessen had the following to say:
I am driven to the regretful conclusion that the parties are simply incapable or cannot be trusted to conduct this litigation themselves, even when case managed.
This is a sorry state of affairs that this motion reveals has not changed.
[47] The Plaintiffs have been given every opportunity to present their case in the way they consider appropriate. They have chosen, however, not to produce a true witness list or meaningful will says in accordance with a Court order that required them to do so by September 15, 2004. Instead, the Plaintiffs propose to take the Court and the other parties down a path that has no clear end in sight and that will lead to chaos at the trial. The Plaintiffs could have suggested ways to remedy the situation but they have chosen not to, and now raise "practical difficulties" that should have been raised and addressed long ago. They have, in effect, decided to put the whole conduct of the trial on the line. Under these circumstances, the rights of the other parties and the integrity of the litigation process require the Court to act in a decisive manner before the whole process subsides into chaos.
[48] I quite appreciate that the Plaintiffs take issue with the adequacy of the witness lists and will says provided to date by the Crown and the Interveners. If the Plaintiffs are of the view that they cannot prepare adequately for trial because of what has been produced by the Crown and the Interveners, then they should come to the Court for relief rather than using alleged inadequacies in the materials of other parties as an excuse for submitting their own deficient lists and will says. My review of the materials submitted by other parties in this regard suggests that any problem is nowhere near the magnitude of what the Plaintiffs have caused by their naming 150 potential witnesses and producing no meaningful will says. But the Plaintiffs do not say that the materials produced by others are a real problem for them, and that issue does not have to be dealt with as part of this motion.
ORDER
A. MOTION HEARD OCTOBER 1, 2004
1. The Pre-Trial Order of Justice Hugessen dated March 26, 2004 is amended to allow the Crown to serve and file expert rebuttal reports concerning the four expert reports that Dr. von Gernet is responsible for in accordance with para. 6 of Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order on or before November 30, 2004. This date, however, may be further varied by the Court at the request of the Crown in the event that other aspects of the timetable set by Justice Hugessen are varied;
2. No extension of time is granted to the Crown, and no consent is granted for a supplemental rebuttal report, to enable Dr. von Gernet to provide a rebuttal expert opinion on oral histories presented by the Plaintiffs. This will not prevent, however, the Crown and the Interveners from raising at trial any discrepancies between the oral summaries provided by the Plaintiffs and the oral history evidence given at trial;
3. The Crown and the Plaintiffs are at liberty to apply to the Court pursuant to s. 7 of Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order for leave to file primary expert reports concerning appropriate methodologies and procedures for assessing oral history evidence should they feel this necessary;
4. Because the Crown motion heard October 1, 2004 was only partially successful, no order shall be made as to the costs.
B. MOTION HEARD OCTOBER 7, 2004
5. The witness lists and will says provided to date by the Plaintiffs in accordance with paragraph 9 of Justice Hugessen's Pre-Trial Order are struck for non-compliance with that Order.
6. None of the witnesses named by the Plaintiffs in the witness lists and will says produced to date shall be called by the Plaintiffs until the Plaintiffs have obtained further leave of the Court in accordance with paragraph 7 of this order;
7. Bearing in mind the amount of time that remains before the trial begins on January 10, 2005, the Plaintiffs have leave to apply to the Court with proposals for a workable solution to the problems caused by their non-compliance with the Pre-Trial Order and their production of deficient witness lists and will says;
8. The Crown and the Interveners shall have their costs of this motion calculated in accordance with Column V of Tariff "B" of the Federal Court Rules 1998, and payable forthwith and in any event of the cause.
"James Russell"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: T-66-86A and T-66-86B
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAWRIDGE BAND
Respondent
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
and
TSUU T'INA FIRST NATION
Respondent
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 1 and 7, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDERS
AND ORDERS BY: RUSSELL J.
DATED: OCTOBER 18, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Catherine Twinn
Mr. Phil Healey
Ms. Lori Mattis
Ms. Kristina Midbo
FOR RESPONDENT
Mr. Kevin Kimmis
Ms. Kathleen Kohlman
Mr. James Kindrake
Mr. Dale Slafarek
FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Mary Eberts
FOR INTERVENER(S),
NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Mr. Jon Faulds
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
Mr. Derek Cranna
Mr. Kenneth Purchase
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Michael Donaldson
Mr. Robert O. Millard
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Aird & Berlis
Toronto, Ontario
FOR RESPONDENT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR APPLICANT
Eberts Syms Street
& Corbett
Toronto, Ontario
FOR INTERVENER, NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Field Atkinson
Perraton LLP
Edmonton, Alberta
FOR INTERVENER, NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
Lang Michener
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR INTERVENER, NATIVE
COUNCIL OF CANADA
Burnet Duckworth &
Palmer LLP
Calgary, Alberta
FOR INTERVENER, NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20041018
Dockets: T-66-86A and T-66-86B
BETWEEN:
SAWRIDGE BAND
Respondent
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
and
TSUU T'INA FIRST NATION
Respondent
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA)
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
REASONS FOR ORDERS
AND ORDERS