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

F52
1
2MS. HUTCHISON: Thank you, My Lord. Iwill also endeavour to
3
4
beasbrief as possible given the time of day.
5 One observation having listened to the excellent submissions of my friends, I think it is
6 clear that the topic of membership is a fraught topic. Iwould also submit to the Court
7 that to try to suggest that when the Sawridge trustees are before this Court asking for a
8 change, a variance to the beneficiary definition, it will tie all rights as beneficiaries to that
9 fraught issue of membership. It does the Court a bit of a disservice not to give you full
10 access to the information you may need to assess the practical impacts of that change in
11
12
definition, and that’s just an initial observation, My Lord.
13 Just to try and reply to a few of the points that my friends have raised, I won’t reply to
14 all of them, but there are a few that I’d like to deal with directly. If I understood
15 Ms. Bonora’s submissions, the suggestion is that the Public Trustee’s submission to this
16 Court is that we need to be here and that we need to make these arguments; and I’d like
17 to ensure the Court is not left with any misunderstanding about what my client’s actual
18 position is. And Ishould just note the submission was also that no one asked the Public
19
20
Trustee to be involved.
21 The Public Trustee was served with notice of this order on this Court’s direction, My
22 Lord. At that point, the Public Trustee felt it had some obligation of due diligence to at
23 least evaluate what the issues in the action were; so I would submit it’s -- to the extent
24 there’s any characterization that this -- the Public Trustee has gone off on a bit of a lark
25 and decided to become involved in this action, that’s not a correct characterization of the
26
27
Public Trustee’s position.
28 Furthermore, it’s not correct to try and suggest that the Public Trustee is saying, We are
29 the end all and be all and we are the only entity that could possibly assist the Court on
30 these issues and that could possibly address the interest of the minors. But unfortunately,
31 and Ican tell you my client wishes it were otherwise in some respects, we’re the only
32 entity here that is willing to deal with these issues; and I will speak to my friend’s
33 submissions that it’s adequate to have the Sawridge trustees deal with that and deal with
34 those issues. But good, bad, or indifferent, the Public Trustee is the only party that has
35 come before you to say, We’re willing to act, admittedly on conditions, but we are willing
36
37
to act and give this Court and the minors the benefit of active representation, not silence.
38 I move on the my friend’s submission, as I understood it essentially, and I say this with
39 the greatest of respect that I summarize the approach as essentially, the Court can trust us,
40 the Sawridge trustees or perhaps even the Sawridge First Nation. We have duties to the
41 minors, and we will raise all of these issues; however, what I heard in those submissions,