Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

30circumstances of the case, which centred on litigating the nature and extent ofAboriginal title in the Claim Area.105. Moreover, such relief is captured by paragraph n) of the Plaintiff’s Prayer forRelief, which the Trial Judge failed to mention or consider in his reasons. Declarationsof Aboriginal title to lesser included portions of the Claim Area fall squarely within the“further, other, equitable, and related relief” to the primary declarations sought by thePlaintiff. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Native Women's Associationof Canada v. Canada:Although … the respondents did not specifically include a request for adeclaration in their pleadings, they did include a "basket clause" requesting"[s]uch other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just". It has been heldthat a "basket clause" in the prayer for relief permits a court to exercise itsdiscretion to grant a declaration even though it was not specifically pleaded. 202If the “basket clause” in the Plaintiff’s pleadings supports declaratory relief even whenno declarations were sought, it clearly permits the court to issue a declaration onnarrower terms than those specifically pleaded in the prayer for relief.106. Properly considered, the Plaintiff sought declarations of Aboriginal title toTachelach’ed and the Trapline Territory and “further, other, equitable, and relatedrelief” 203 as demanded by the circumstances of the case, including declarations ofAboriginal title to portions of Tachelach’ed and the Trapline Territory.107. As the Trial Judge observed, “[i]t appears that British Columbia was aware of thepotential for this alternative claim to title over portions of these defined areas”. 204This is202 Native Women's Assn. of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627, para. 34 [underscore added]; see also: LazarSarna, The Law of Declaratory Judgments, 3 rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2007), p. 101-102; Hulton v. Hulton, [1916] 2K.B. 642, aff’d [1917] 1 K.B. 813 (C.A.) p. 656; Re Lewis’s Declaration of Trust; Lewis v. Lewis; Lewis v. Ryder, [1953]1 All E.R. 1005, (sub nom. Loudon v. Ryder (No. 2)), [1953] 1 All E.R. 1005, [1953] Ch. 423 (Ch. D.); at 1008; Meisnerv. Mason, [1931] 2 D.L.R. 156, 1931 CarswellNS 39 (N.S.C.A.); R v. Bales; Ex parte Meaford General Hospital (1970),[1971] 2 O.R. 305, 17 D.L.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. H.C.) ; Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation,[2007] O.J. No. 1841, 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 460 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), para. 175; Phillips v. 707739 Alberta Ltd., 2000 ABQB139, 259 A.R. 201 paras. 241-46.203 Amended Statement of Claim, Prayer for Relief, n) [underscore added]204 Trial Decision, para. 121.