Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

25Q. Reconciliation89. The Trial Judge concluded his Reasons for Judgment with an extensivediscussion of the founding principle of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence – reconciliation –and its application in the present case. 17990. The Trial Judge reiterated that the “centuries old occupation” 180 and the “longstandingpresence of Tsilhqot’in people in the Claim Area is a simple, straightforwardacknowledgement of an historical fact”. 181 He further emphasized that he had describedtracts of Aboriginal title lands that provided “cultural security and continuity to theTsilhqot’in people for better than two centuries” 182 and such lands “ultimately definedand sustained them as a people”. 18391. Finally, the Trial Judge expressed his “consistent hope” that his judgment wouldcontribute to an early and honourable reconciliation with Tsilhqot’in people:After a trial of this scope and duration, it would be tragic if reconciliation withTsilhqot’in people were postponed through seemingly endless appeals. The timeto reach an honourable resolution and reconciliation is with us today. 184R. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Pleadings92. After the Trial Decision, the Plaintiff brought an application to amend hisStatement of Claim by adding the words “or portions thereof” throughout the relevantsections. The Trial Judge denied the Plaintiff’s application, stating:I have concluded that to allow the amendment to take place at this point wouldbe unfair and prejudicial to the defendants. If I am wrong in my earlierconclusions relating to an “all or nothing” claim, then no amendment of thepleadings is required. It would be open to the Court of Appeal to grant a179 Trial Decision, paras. 1338 et seq.180 Trial Decision, para. 1374.181 Trial Decision, para. 1377.182 Trial Decision, para. 1376.183 Trial Decision, para. 1377.184 Trial Decision, para. 1338. See also para. 1382.