31420-12-1 SAWRIDGE, Indian vs. ROLAND, Twinn et al

F09
1 point the Court to the authorities we’ve cited. And I’m looking at paragraph 18. Sorry,
2 atparagraph 17 through to paragraph 19 of our reply submission with cites to V.B. v.
3 Alberta and Thomlinson v. Alberta which are at Tab 7 of the Sawridge Trustee’s
4 authorities and Tab 22 of the Public Trustee’s authorities respectively. In both those
5 cases, we would suggest, My Lord, the courts have acknowledged that the general
6 approach is appointment of the parent or guardian, but where there’s a conflict of interest,
7 it’s absolutely acceptable to appoint either the Public Trustee or, in fact, perhaps even a
8 stranger to the minor. If that’s what’s necessary to give the minor the objective neutral
9 representation that they require from a litigation representative. Thomlinson also makes
10 the comment that if there is nobody stepping forward, or the parent, I should say, is not
11 interested in acting as litigation guardian, that may be adequate justification to appoint
12 someone other than the guardian or the parent. And I would simply suggest, My Lord,
13 that while my friends interpret the parents and guardian’s silence as an endorsement of the
14 Sawridge Trustee’s main application, it could equally be interpreted as a lack of interest
15 or equally interpreted as a support of the Public Trustee’s application, that the reality is
16
17
we just don’t actually know what their positions are at this point in time.
18 My Lord, if the Court accepts that there is a need for an independent neutral third party
19 litigation representative for the minors, as I’ve indicated, at this point in time at least the
20 only entity before the Court or individual before the Court even -- even conditionally
21 willing to play that role is the Public Trustee. And that brings us to a very unique
22 statutory authority, as it were, that the Public Trustee has. And I would just take the
23 Court to Tab 14 of our authorities, Section 6 of the Public Trustee Act. And this is also a
24 provision, My Lord, that was commented on by the Court in the second L.C. decision
25
26
which Ibelieve is Tab 10, I’m sorry, My Lord, of our book of authorities.
27 So it’s a very unique authority or ability that the Public Trustee has to decline to act, to
28 decline to represent the interests of minors absent a statutory obligation to do so. And of
29 course, in this particular case, we have no statutory obligation that would compel the
30 Public Trustee to act in this matter. The Public Trustee is before the Court solely because
31 they were made aware of the proceeding, and upon doing their review of the matter,
32 identified that there were issues that they felt at least should be brought to the attention of
33 the Court for the Court to determine whether or not that merited appointment of a
34
35
litigation representative.
36 And I draw the Court’s attention to Section 6, My Lord, primarily because while the
37 terms that we’re requesting of the appointment -- for an appointment of a Public Trustee
38 here, I believe -- I’m paraphrasing my friends’ submissions, but I would suggest my
39 friends consider our conditions fairly onerous. They are indeed the only conditions I’ve
40 been instructed to accept as terms of the appointment. And, My Lord, in terms of the
41 policy reasons behind that, I’d invite the Court simply to imagine the position that the