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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
F20 1 of these past proceedings involving children who have been taken into care and then 2 because they’re taken into care, the Public Trustee has jurisdiction over them and has 3 certain obligations to them. So we do hear this argument a lot, that the government and 4 the Public Trustee are one and the same. But I think that this court’s made it quite clear 5 6 the Public Trustee is an independent party. 7MS. BONORA: 8 Right. 9THE COURT: 10 Are an independent person. 11 MS. BONORA: I absolutely acknowledge that. Of course, they 12 13 are funded by the government. So, you know, they’re different -- 14 THE COURT: 15 Or not -- 16 MS. BONORA: 17 Pardon me? 18 THE COURT: 19 Or not as the case may be. 20 MS. BONORA: 21 Right. 22 The -- and I think the issue is that there’s a public body that’s seeking costs as opposed to 23 an individual, right? Very different, and I’m going to get into this in a bit more detail 24 later, but certainly different than many of the cases cited when we look at the Okanagan 25 case or the Little Sisters case where you had individuals who couldn’t proceed. Here, I 26 think the Public Trustee certainly has the ability to proceed. Certainly has the resources to 27 proceed. It may be that they are awarded costs at the end of the day. And that’s 28 something we’re not going to decide today. And I would certainly agree that may well be 29 the case, that at the end of the day after the Court has heard their arguments, they may 30 decide that they were essential to be here and that they may be awarded costs at that time. 31 We’re suggesting that they don’t get into the cases and into the test that is required for 32 33 advance costs. 34 THE COURT: Okay. And here’s the other question I had. 35 You know, you talked about the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court. And I certainly 36 take your point that there are going to -- whether the Public Trustee is here or not, there 37 are going to be many participants in this, or a number of participants, who can raise 38 arguments. But one of the concerns I’d have, certainly you can raise arguments and deal 39 with legal issues, but who’s to go out and get the evidence? Imean, that’s one of the 40 problems the court’s always faced with is getting the evidence. I mean, we -- the court 41 has no independent ability to get that. We depend on parties to bring evidence forward.
Page 4 and 5: P01 Clerk’s Stamp: COURT FILE NUM
Page 6 and 7: P03 10. The minors affected by this
Page 8 and 9: F01 Action No.: 1103 14112 E-File N
Page 10 and 11: F03 1Proceedings taken in the Court
Page 12 and 13: F05 1THE COURT: 2 3 Submissions by
Page 14 and 15: F07 1 2 The only other point I woul
Page 16 and 17: F09 1 point the Court to the author
Page 18 and 19: F11 1 inL.C. as to what exactly the
Page 20 and 21: F13 1 entire history of the members
Page 22 and 23: F15 1 make the sorts of inquiries w
Page 24 and 25: F17 1 aside this money, and now we
Page 28 and 29: F21 1 Sothat -- Imean, that’s one
Page 30 and 31: F23 1 2 Wehave, in our brief, set o
Page 32 and 33: F25 1 Ifwelook at the Caron case, w
Page 34 and 35: F27 1 that exemption. Ithink that,
Page 36 and 37: F29 1 resources, have no significan
Page 38 and 39: F31 1 2 Where we look at the L.C. c
Page 40 and 41: F33 1 the, what I’ll call, the ol
Page 42 and 43: F35 1 that they have. And I’ll ju
Page 44 and 45: F37 1 she had a concern, the approp
Page 46 and 47: F39 1 Court to seek judicial review
Page 48 and 49: F41 1 Certificate of Record 2 3 I,
Page 50 and 51: F43 1Proceedings taken in the Court
Page 52 and 53: F45 1 rights, which was fundamental
Page 54 and 55: F47 1MR. MOLSTAD: Yeah. They were o
Page 56 and 57: F49 1 2 ifIcould? 3THE COURT: 4 All
Page 58 and 59: F51 1THE COURT: -- be a party? 2 3M
Page 60 and 61: F53 1 MyLord, was a very conditiona
Page 62 and 63: F55 1THE COURT: 2 Yes. Just -- 3MS.
Page 64 and 65: F57 1 2THE COURT: 3 -- you know. 4M
Page 66 and 67: F59 1 evidence before you in this a
Page 68 and 69: F61 1THE COURT: Just so you are --
Page 70 and 71: F63 1 anyone who isn’t a benefici
Page 72 and 73: F65 1 2MR. PORETTI: -- your attenti
Page 74 and 75: F67 1 Certificate of Record 2 3 I,A
Page 76 and 77:
F69 Transcript Mangement Services W
Page 78 and 79:
F71
Page 80 and 81:
F73
Page 82 and 83:
F75
Page 84 and 85:
F77
Page 86 and 87:
F79
Page 88 and 89:
F81
Page 90 and 91:
F83
Page 92 and 93:
F85
Page 94 and 95:
F87
Page 96 and 97:
F89
Page 98 and 99:
F91
Page 100:
F93
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?