Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

C. Alternative Argument: The Trial Judge was not barred from declaringAboriginal title to lesser, included areas in the Claim Area. ..................... 331. Broad discretion to grant declaratory relief .............................................. 332. The Trial Judge’s reliance on Biss ........................................................... 343. The proper approach to declaratory relief: Biss rejected ......................... 364. Application to Aboriginal title claims ......................................................... 375. No Prejudice to the Defendants ............................................................... 41(a) The Plaintiff was not required to plead boundaries of individual “definitetracts” ....................................................................................................... 42(b) Aboriginal title is shaped by the evidence, not arbitrary boundaries ... 43(c) Delgamuukw is not binding or applicable ........................................... 446. If amendments were required, the Trial Judge should have granted leaveto amend .................................................................................................. 497. Fairness and justice demand recognition of Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title .... 50Error #2 – Assessing Occupation in Isolation from Exclusive Control .............. 52PART 4 – NATURE OF THE ORDER SOUGHT .......................................................... 60Appendix A – Law and Equity Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 253, Section 1Appendix B – Reference Map