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

F27
1 that exemption. Ithink that, and I would submit that, if in fact, though, there has been
2 poor behaviour, if in fact the litigation is stretched out or anything, the Court has very few
3 remedies to deal with that. And the Court should hold on to that remedy until the end of
4 the day. And if they act properly, they will be exempt. So it doesn’t -- they don’t need
5 anexemption in advance, and it is our submission that that would be inappropriate at this
6
7
stage.
8 I’d like to just make -- do some responses to the briefs of the Office of the Public
9 Trustee. The -- I’m going to start with their response brief. In paragraph 8, they say that
10 the trustee has not -- the trustees have not explained why they haven’t taken steps to
11 secure appropriate representation. And it is our submission that we don’t think it’s
12
13
needed. We believe that all the arguments will be presented.
14 There is a great deal of argument made with respect to the conflicts that everyone is in:
15 The parents, the trustees, the trustees as beneficiaries and as parents. And it is our
16 submission that that’s quite common that there would be, in estate cases and in trustee
17 cases, that there would be conflicts. But we don’t believe that that has any impact on
18 what’s going to happen here. The trustees are putting on their trustee hat and coming to
19 this Court and saying, We will do our fiduciary duty to present all the arguments and ask
20 you to help us to change this definition, or not change it. And we don’t think that these
21
22
issues of conflict are going to have an issue.
23 I do think that when the Office of the Public Trustee argues that the parents would not
24 want their children as beneficiaries because then there would be more money for the
25 parents, Iwould submit that most parents want their children to be successful and would
26 not want to say I want to keep you out because then there’s more money for me. Idon’t
27 think that that is an appropriate argument and that we should give parents, certainly these
28
29
parents, alot more credit than that.
30 We said in our brief that we thought it was somewhat anachronistic that the Public
31 Trustee has come in and said we need to be here and we need to make these arguments.
32 And it is our submission that those parents maybe don’t want them, and they should be
33
34
canvassed before the Public Trustee simply steps in.
35 In paragraph 16 of the reply brief, they make reference to the Mrs. E. case, which is the
36 sterilization case. And if we -- it’s at paragraph -- pardon me, I think it’s at Tab 16.
37 Sorry. Tab 2 of the reply brief. And if we look at paragraph 73 of that case, it talks
38 about that parens patriae jurisdiction and the need to act for the protection of those who
39 cannot care for themselves. And so I think that that again is the issue that the court is also
40 involved in this. In our case, that would be used. The same principles would be used to
41 protect these children.