01.03.2013 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!