Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

20declaration because of the manner in which the action had been pleaded. The TrialJudge addressed this matter as a “preliminary issue”, described below.75. The Trial Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for past infringementsof Aboriginal title without prejudice to the right to renew these claims. 155N. The “Preliminary Issue”76. In the final days of trial, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had advanced an“all or nothing” claim, such that the Court could find Aboriginal title only to Tachelach’edor the Trapline Territory as a whole, but not to smaller, component portions. 156 Inresponse, the Plaintiff argued that he had not brought an “all or nothing” claim and that,in any event, the Court had jurisdiction to find that component portions of the ClaimArea qualified for a declaration of Aboriginal title. 15777. The Trial Judge noted that the Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim soughtdeclarations to Tachelach’ed and the Trapline Territory but did not explicitly seek adeclaration to “any portions thereof”. 158 On this basis, the Trial Judge concluded thatthe Plaintiff had framed an “all or nothing” claim and that he could not grant declarationsover portions of the Claim Area. 15978. In the result, the Trial Judge held that the evidence established Aboriginal title tosubstantial portions of the Claim Area, but not to Tachelach’ed or the Trapline Territoryas a whole. 160 Because of his determination of the preliminary issue, he consideredhimself precluded from granting any declaration of Aboriginal title. 161155 Trial Decision, para. 1336.156 Trial Decision, para. 106.157 Trial Decision, para. 107.158 Trial Decision, para. 120.159 Trial Decision, para. 129.160 Trial Decision, para. 957.161 Trial Decision, para. 957.