Date: 20040811
Docket: T-2022-89
Citation: 2004 FC 1117
CALGARY, Alberta, Wednesday, the 11th day of August, 2004.
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
BETWEEN:
CHIEF VICTOR BUFFALO acting on his own behalf and on behalf
of the other members of the Samson Indian Nation and Band and THE SAMSON INDIAN BAND AND NATION,
Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, and THE MINISTER OF FINANCE,
Defendants
CHIEF JEROME MORIN acting on his own behalf as well as on behalf of all the MEMBERS OF ENOCH'S BAND OF INDIANS AND THE RESIDENTS THEREOF ON AND OF STONY PLAIN RESERVE NO. 135
Intervenors
- and -
EMILY STOYKA and SARA SCHUG
Intervenors
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] By oral motion, the plaintiff Samson seeks to have the Court direct, pursuant to Rule 289, that additional material be added to the discoveries, which the defendant Crown had read into the record as evidence in their case. Those discovery read-ins have been marked as exhibit C-1088 in the trial of this action.
[2] Rule 289 provides as follows:
289. Qualifying answers - The Court may order a party who uses part of an examination for discovery as its own evidence to introduce into evidence any other part of the examination for discovery that the Court considers is so related that it ought not to be omitted.
[3] In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Odynsky (1999), 173 F.T.R. 295 (T.D.), MacKay J. described the purpose of this rule at paragraph 6:
This Rule is comparable to the Court's former Rule 494 (10) except that the former rule provided for the Court to act 'on the application of an adverse party', a limitation not included in the 1998 Rule. In my view, the current rule serves the same purpose as the former rule, a purpose I described in brief Reasons in Oro Del Norte, SA v. Canada, [1991] F.C.J. No. 986 (F.C.T.D.), as being:
to ensure that evidence from a transcript of examination for discovery which is read in as evidence at trial is placed in proper context so that it is seen and read fairly, without prejudice to another party that might arise if only a portion of the content relevant to a fair understanding of the evidence read in is given.
[4] The following is a list of the additional material put forward by the plaintiff Samson that will be added to the Crown's discovery evidence (reference is by way of tab numbers in the binder that constitutes exhibit C-1088):
(i) page 148, line 22 to page 149, line 13; page 154, lines 7 to 26; and undertaking response 35 will be added to the Crown's tab 31;
(ii) page 194, line 19 to page 195, line 4; page 198, line 5 to page 206, line 24; undertaking response 49; undertaking response 50; undertaking response 51; undertaking response 52; and undertaking response 53 will be added to the Crown's tab 39;
(iii) page 1044, line 13 to page 1045, line 9; page 484, lines 3 to 14; undertaking response 166; page 1031, lines 5 to 18; and undertaking response 288 will be added to the Crown's tab 47;
(iv) page 534, line 22 to page 536, line 24; undertaking response 173; updated undertaking response 173; undertaking response 174; page 1106, lines 8 to 26; and undertaking response 297 will be added to the Crown's tab 49;
(v) page 567, line 2 to page 568 line 9; undertaking response 184; updated undertaking response 184; undertaking response 185; and undertaking response 99 will be added to the Crown's tab 50;
(vi) page 823, line 25 to page 825, line 1 and page 834, line 3 to page 838, line 15 will be added to the Crown's tab 81; and
(vii) page 982, lines 1 to 11 will be added to the Crown's tab 97.
[5] All other requests for additional material by the plaintiff Samson are denied.
[6] The Crown will inform the Court within seven days whether it will be withdrawing any read-ins and, if so, which ones.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that: the list of additional material put forward by the plaintiff Samson that is to be added to the Crown's discovery evidence is as found in paragraph 4 of the Reasons for Order.
All other requests for additional material by the plaintiff Samson are denied.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2022-89
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHIEF VICTOR BUFFALO ET AL v. HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL
PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING: JULY 20, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
DATED: AUGUST 11, 2004
APPEARANCES:
J. O'REILLY
E. MOLSTAD, Q.C., FOR PLAINTIFFS
A. MACLEOD, Q.C.,
C. HUNTER FOR DEFENDANTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
O'REILLY & ASSOCIÉS
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
PARLEE MACLAWS LLP
EDMONTON, ALBERTA FOR PLAINTIFFS
MACLEOD DIXON LLP
CALGARY, ALBERTA FOR DEFENDANTS