Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

32111. In a subsequent motion, the Trial Judge ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims were notamenable to resolution by stated case under Rule 33. He again affirmed thefundamental nature of the litigation, as understood by all Parties:Initially the plaintiff made a proposal of a special case that was rejected by bothCanada and British Columbia. The defendants were unable to agree on the factsproposed by the plaintiff. They say acceptance of the proposed facts would haveamounted to a complete abandonment of defences raised in these proceedingsconcerning the nature and extent of aboriginal title in the claim area. 209Turning to British Columbia’s proposal to litigate the constitutional applicability ofprovincial forestry legislation by special case on the assumption that there are Crownlands in British Columbia subject to Aboriginal title, the Trial Judge stated:… [I] have concluded that it would not be helpful to have that issue determinedwithout an answer to the central question, namely, do aboriginal rights andaboriginal title exist for Tsilhqot’in people anywhere in the claim area … 210112. The Parties clearly understood the nature of the litigation from the outset.Lesser, included relief was always an issue in these proceedings and, with respect,declarations should issue to those portions of the Claim Area where the Trial Judgefound Aboriginal title was established on the evidence.113. This conclusion is amply supported by the general principle that courts shouldtake all reasonable measures to promote the full and final resolution of litigateddisputes. 211 This principle finds expression in s. 10 of the Law and Equity Act:In the exercise of its jurisdiction in a cause or matter before it, the court mustgrant, either absolutely or on reasonable conditions that to it seem just, allremedies that any of the parties may appear to be entitled to in respect of anylegal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them in the cause or matterso that, as far as possible, all matters in controversy between the parties may be209 William v. British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 964, 30 B.C.L.R. (4 th ) 382, para. 3 [underscore added].210 William v. British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 964, 30 B.C.L.R. (4 th ) 382, para. 5 [underscore added].211 Great Canadian Casino Co. v. Surrey (City), [1998] B.C.J. No. 1188,79 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1049 (B.C.S.C.)