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

F19
1 Certainly we would say that the Public Trustee do a very fine job of making those
2 arguments as well. And if they wish to be here voluntarily, we wouldn’t have difficulties.
3 But we don’t think there’s a need necessarily for a litigation representative. When my
4 friend has said we had an obligation because when there’s an adversarial process, there’s
5 anobligation. We absolutely take the position that that is not adversarial, that we are
6 coming here for an advice and direction application. We expect to be fully open with
7 respect to all the groups that are going to be affected, all the solutions that are possible,
8 and certainly as I said, there will be other parties who will make those submissions as
9
10
well.
11 The trustees aren’t here to win in the main application. They’re here to seek direction.
12
13
And Ithink that’s a very important distinction.
14 I would agree that we perhaps have been a bit more aggressive in this preliminary
15 application. But that’s because the trustees feel very obligated to protect the trust assets.
16 And so the main concern we have is the direction that we would have to pay costs to the
17 Public Trustees. These assets belong to the beneficiary. They hope to use these assets for
18 many years to come, for children and seniors and many programs. And they do find it
19 astounding that they would want -- that they would have to pay the government to be
20
21
involved. Especially when no one, no one has asked the Public Trustee to be involved.
22 THE COURT: Just aminute. I’ve got a couple of questions
23
24
that have piled up here.
25 MS. BONORA:
26
Yes.
27 THE COURT: Now, you, just a few minutes ago, you referred
28 to the government asking to be paid, I think were the words you used. Are you saying as
29 a matter of law that the Government of Alberta and the Public Trustee are one and the
30
31
same or?
32 MS. BONORA: Well, I suppose it is a -- you know, it is the
33 Office of the Public Trustee. It is part of the Government of Alberta. And so it’s
34 definitely a government department. I certainly haven’t investigated their links to the
35
36
government, but --
37 THE COURT: Well, Ithink you’ll find in the legislation it’s a
38 pretty independent office, if I can -- it’s a statutory office. And I’m sure counsel for the
39 Public Trustee will sort of guide me to the provisions in the Act which make that quite
40 clear. And I’m raising it because we hear this all the time in many of these other cases
41 that, in fact, you’re referring the Court to or that counsel are referring the Court to. All