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

F11
1 inL.C. as to what exactly the evidence before the Court was of impecuniosity, but clearly
2 itwas adequate to satisfy Justice Graesser. But I don’t see anything in L.C., My Lord,
3 where anyone attempted to invite the Court or suggest to the Court that its parens patriae
4 jurisdiction might put a whole different spin on an advance costs request or on an
5
6
indemnity for solicitor client costs request, My Lord.
7 Sowetake the position that it is a distinguishable situation that we’re dealing with at the
8
9
moment.
10 And Iwould just draw the Court’s attention to one other authority that we’ve cited. And
11 that would be Deans v. Thachuk, which is at Tab 4 of our authorities. And in
12 particular -- in particular, My Lord, I’m referring to paragraph 43 where the court does
13 recognize that it’s actually quite common in cases where trustees are seeking guidance
14 from the Court as to construction or administration of a trust or something to do with a
15 difficulty in construction of a trust where cost of all parties will be paid from the trust
16 fund. So certainly in terms of the request that the trust fund itself be responsible for the
17 Public Trustee’s costs to represent the minors, that’s not particularly unusual. In fact, it’s
18
19
very much, we would submit, in step with other trust cases.
20 And, My Lord, we’d simply highlight for the Court, I don’t plan to read the points to you,
21 but in paragraph 84 of our original brief, we’ve set out again some of the unique facts of
22 this case that we suggest are particularly compelling or important in terms of why minors
23 will need to have some independent representation. And furthermore, My Lord, why the
24 Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction is engaged to protect those interests given that there is
25
26
no one else stepping forward at this point in time to play that role.
27 A further condition that the Public Trustee as requested in its application, My Lord, is
28 found at -- from paragraph 86 through to paragraph 88 of our original submission which
29 is arequest for exemption from liability for costs. And, My Lord, we’d simply note -- I
30 apologize. Tab 1 of our authorities includes Rule 10.47 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
31 And as My Lord will be aware, the essence of that rule is to indicate that where a
32 litigation representative is acting for a defendant, they in fact will not be liable to pay for
33 costs. And so we would submit, My Lord, that there are some parallels here. We
34 recognize that it’s not a pure action. We maintain that this is not an adversarial matter,
35 but just as we -- just as we have situations where rules for actions must apply to strict
36 judicial reviews or to judicial reviews, My Lord, we would submit that they can also
37 apply to an application of this nature, one for advice and direction by the trustees
38 particularly, My Lord, when -- as I take the tenor of some of my friends’ submissions,
39 there does seem to be an issue in dispute as between the Sawridge Trustee and the
40 Sawridge First Nation and -- well, at least the minors if the Public Trustee were
41 representing them. The Public Trustee has raised a number of issues particularly