31420-12-1 SAWRIDGE, Indian vs. ROLAND, Twinn et al
31420-12-1 SAWRIDGE, Indian vs. ROLAND, Twinn et al
31420-12-1 SAWRIDGE, Indian vs. ROLAND, Twinn et al
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
F47<br />
1MR. MOLSTAD: Yeah. They were obiter, and they were made<br />
2 bythe Court without the benefit of evidence in relation to the history, the culture, and the<br />
3 natur<strong>al</strong> laws of the Sawridge First Nation. Our submission is that they are both irrelevant<br />
4<br />
5<br />
and, again in addition to that, that no weight should be attributed to them.<br />
6 In paragraph 30 of the Public Trustee’s brief, the Public Trustee, with the greatest of<br />
7 respect, demonstrates that it is equ<strong>al</strong>ly uninformed about the history, the culture, and the<br />
8 natur<strong>al</strong> laws of the Sawridge First Nation. They take it upon themselves to express an<br />
9 opinion in paragraph 40 of their brief about the Sawridge First Nation membership<br />
10<br />
11<br />
application. We submit that it is, as well, irrelevant, and it should be given no weight.<br />
<strong>12</strong> To help in terms of considering a question like this and to put it into perspective even if it<br />
13 were relevant, we would submit that in Euro-Canadian soci<strong>et</strong>y, if someone was applying<br />
14 to become a member of your family, we would submit that you might have a few<br />
15<br />
16<br />
questions that you would want to put to that person.<br />
17 My friend has referred you the Huzar decision, and I believe that Mr. Por<strong>et</strong>ti has de<strong>al</strong>t<br />
18 with this adequately. Iwould encourage you to read paragraphs 3 and 5 of that decision.<br />
19<br />
20<br />
It’s <strong>al</strong>so found at Tab 4 of the Sawridge First Nation brief.<br />
21 THE COURT:<br />
22<br />
Sorry, what were those paragraphs again?<br />
23 MR. MOLSTAD:<br />
24<br />
Paragraphs 3and 5.<br />
25 THE COURT:<br />
26<br />
Okay.<br />
27 MR. MOLSTAD: And I’m not sure what evidence is in front of<br />
28 you, and it’s not my job to put evidence in front of you, but it’s unfortunate that<br />
29 Ms. Kennedy is not here because she would be able to tell you that her client has made<br />
30 an application for membership and that application’s been denied; and an appe<strong>al</strong> hearing<br />
31 has been s<strong>et</strong> because in accordance with the membership rules, there is not only a process<br />
32 for application, there’s <strong>al</strong>so a process for an appe<strong>al</strong> in relation to a decision of the Chief<br />
33<br />
34<br />
and Council in regard to that.<br />
35<br />
36<br />
We <strong>al</strong>so submit, Sir, that --<br />
37 THE COURT: Okay. Just for my interest, where is the appe<strong>al</strong><br />
38<br />
39<br />
to?<br />
40 MR. MOLSTAD:<br />
41<br />
It’s going to be taking place on the 21st.