Sawridge Band v. Canada

Sawridge Band v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-09-18
Neutral citation
2003 FC 1083
File numbers
T-66-86
Decision Content
Date: 20030918
Docket: T-66-86-A
Citation No.: 2003 FC 1083
BETWEEN:
SAWRIDGE BAND
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
- and -
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA),
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA
and NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
Docket: T-66-86-B
AND BETWEEN:
TSUU T'INA FIRST NATION
(formerly the Sarcee Indian Band)
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
- and -
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA,
NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA),
NON-STATUS INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA
and NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Interveners
REASONS FOR ORDER
HUGESSEN, J.:
[1] The record of the case management of these cases is filled with comments made by me as Case Management Judge with respect to the conduct of the parties both of them, but in particular, of the Plaintiffs in moving the case forward or more accurately in failing to do so. I will not repeat those remarks here. They are on record and in several cases they are reported.
[2] I can only say that this case does not stand out as an example of successful case management if success in that endeavour is to be measured by moving a case forward to trial. A case be it said in which trial has already been held and in which a new trial has been ordered.
[3] At the conclusion of the oral examinations for discovery a stage of the cases in which my intervention was several times called for and in which I was required to place strict limits on the parties and at times to discipline them for failure to move the matter forward. At the conclusion I say of that stage in May of 2002 it was contemplated that written interrogatories might be filed on each side. It is abundantly clear from the context of the order allowing those interrogatories that they were intended to be of a "tidy up" or "clean up" nature to fill in any unforseen gaps. The Order as I say which allowed interrogatories provided for them to be submitted to the Court for approval within a very short period of time.
[4] The Crown has served and filed interrogatories upon the Plaintiffs and no issue arises out of that. Now the Plaintiffs have served and filed 14,000 interrogatories upon the Crown. The figure of 14,000 is a minimum figure because some of the questions are multiple. The Crown moves to strike them as being a vexatious abuse of the Court's process. They are unquestionably that. There is no basis upon which 14,000 interrogatory questions can properly be asked. There is no basis upon which 14,000 interrogatory questions could be viewed as other than a frivolous, vexatious and abusive use of the privilege of litigation. I have been asked to strike them out and I shall do so.
[5] I have also been asked to declare that the Plaintiffs' discovery rights are at an end and I shall do that too subject only to permitting the Plaintiffs by motion in writing pursuant to Rule 369 to seek from the Court leave to put written questions to the Crown whose necessity for the purposes of advancing the trial is to be demonstrated by the Plaintiffs. So as to make myself absolutely clear the burden of demonstrating the necessity of any further question is to be on the Plaintiffs. The specific words of any proposed questions are to be submitted as a part of the motion materials and I shall deal with them on that basis. This case has gone on far too long. I have said that already on many occasions in the past. This time the Plaintiffs have succeeded in breaking the camel's back.
[6] There will be no further discoveries except on the basis which I have indicated. I think that somewhat unusually this is a case for costs. I note that the Plaintiffs with a show of bravura which inspires at least astonishment on my part ask for costs under Column 5. In my view, the Plaintiffs' conduct on this aspect of the litigation is absolutely inexcusable. There will be an Order for costs for a lump sum to be paid by both Plaintiffs in whatever proportions they choose between them to pay to the Crown of $20,000.00.
"James K. Hugessen"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-66-86
STYLE OF CAUSE: Sawridge Band v. Her Majesty the Queen et al;
Tsuu T'ina First Nation v. Her Majesty the Queen et al
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: September 18, 2003
REASONS FOR: Hugessen, J.
DATED: September 18, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lori Mattis For the Plaintiffs
Ms. Catherine Twinn For the Plaintiffs
Ms. Kristina Midbo For the Plaintiffs
Mr. James Kindrake For the Defendant
Ms. Kathleen Kohlman For the Defendant
Mr. Mike Donaldson For the Intervener, Non-Status
Indian Assoc. of Alberta
Mr. Dale Cunningham For the Intervener, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Aird & Berlis LLP For the Plaintiffs
Toronto, Ontario
Twinn Barristers & Solicitors For the Plaintiffs
Slave Lake, Alberta
Morris Rosenberg For the Defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Burnet Duckworth & Palmer LLP For the Intervener, Non-Status
Calgary, Alberta Indian Assoc. of Alberta
Field LLP For the Intervener, Native
Edmonton, Alberta Council of Canada (Alberta)