Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DateNovember 20,2002January 8,2003February 14,2003June 4,2001EventVickers J. dismissed an application by Canada to be removed as aparty: William v. British Columbia, 2002 BCSC 1904 [91]. (AR pp. 616,789)Vickers J. struck out the claim against Riverside Forest ProductsLtd.: William v. British Columbia, 2003 BCSC 2036 [92]. (AR p. 624,793)Vickers J. allowed the Plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim anddismissed an application by British Columbia for an order striking outthe Statement of Claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonableclaim, or was otherwise an abuse of process: William v. BritishColumbia, 2003 BCSC 249 [93]. (AR p. 797)Consent order allowing Plaintiff to amend Statement of Claim. (AR p.640)June 16, 2003 The Plaintiff filed an amended Statement of Claim [94]. (AR p. 387)June 19, 2003 Canada filed an amended Statement of Defence [94]. (AR p. 399)June 26, 2003 British Columbia filed a Statement of Defence [94]. (AR p. 402)June 27, 2003November 17,2003May 6, 2004July 16, 2004November 20,2007May 14, 2008The Plaintiff filed a reply to British Columbia’s Statement of Defence[94]. (AR p. 427)The Supreme Court of British Columbia convened at the NaghataneqedSchool in Tl’ebayhi in Xeni (Nemiah Valley) [99]. (AR pp. 663, 666)Vickers J. directed counsel to frame an issue of law or fact, or partly oflaw and partly of fact, pursuant to Rule 33. Counsel were unable toframe such an issue by consent [96]. (AR p. 842 par 50)Following submissions by counsel, Vickers J. concluded that this caseor specific issues arising in this case ought not to proceed as a statedcase pursuant to Rule 33: William v. British Columbia, 2004 BCSC 964[96]. (AR p. 849)Judgment was rendered by Vickers J. (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. BritishColumbia, 2007 BCSC 1700).Vickers J. dismissed a motion by the Plaintiff to amend the Statement ofClaim by adding the words “or portions thereof” throughout the relevantsections of the Statement of Claim. (AR p. 933)
OPENING STATEMENT1. The Tsilhqot’in Nation seeks a declaration of Aboriginal Title to the heartland ofits traditional territory.2. The Tsilhqot’in people have always defended their homeland. From pre-contacttimes to the present they have challenged those who threatened their territory. Thepresent litigation was provoked by threatened forestry activity. Those who stood in theway of bridge construction at Henry’s Crossing, and those who came before Mr. JusticeVickers to give evidence about their continued protection of their land, see themselvesengaged in another historic struggle to protect their lands and culture.3. The land which is the subject matter of this litigation is in one of the most remoteparts of British Columbia. Many of its inhabitants still speak Tsilhqot’in as their firstlanguage. It is precisely because of this remoteness, and the steadfast protection bythe Tsilhqot’in of their traditional lands, that a vibrant Tsilhqot’in culture survives to thisday.4. In this case, on an impressive evidentiary record, the Tsilhqot’in people provedthat they hold Aboriginal title to the heartland of their traditional territory. This proventitle area represents only about 2% of their larger traditional territory. The proven titlearea represents about forty per cent of the area claimed at trial. 25. Although the Chilcotin War took place 146 years ago, the Tsilhqot’in people,including the witnesses who gave evidence at trial, speak of the events surrounding thatwar as if they were current. The mistreatment of their ancestors who were protectingtheir territory has caused deep wounds that remain fresh in the hearts and minds of theTsilhqot’in.2 For reference, see the visual aid attached as Appendix “B”.
Page 1 and 2: JUN 04 * u|UCOURT OF APPEALCourt of
Page 3 and 4: C. Alternative Argument: The Trial
Page 5: DateDecember 18,1998October 14,1999
Page 10 and 11: 2then Chief of the Xeni Gwet’in,
Page 12 and 13: 414. The Tsilhqot’in people inhab
Page 14 and 15: 6… [T]he proper rights holder, wh
Page 16 and 17: 8F. Tsilhqot’in Territory and the
Page 18 and 19: 10bounding the Claim Area. For them
Page 20 and 21: 12…I am satisfied Tsilhqot’in p
Page 22 and 23: 1452. The Trial Judge summarized th
Page 24 and 25: 16records document numerous situati
Page 26 and 27: 18days, Tsilhqot’in warriors also
Page 28 and 29: 20declaration because of the manner
Page 30 and 31: 22• On the west, from Xeni across
Page 32 and 33: 24part of their oral traditions, pr
Page 34 and 35: 26declaration of title in accordanc
Page 36 and 37: 28would have cross-examined witness
Page 38 and 39: 30circumstances of the case, which
Page 40 and 41: 32111. In a subsequent motion, the
Page 42 and 43: 34by the evidence, then the Court c
Page 44 and 45: 36exactly what declaration he seeks
Page 46 and 47: 38declaration should be granted”.
Page 48 and 49: 40occupation sufficient to ground t
Page 50 and 51: 42(a) The Plaintiff was not require
Page 52 and 53: 44process and the legal requirement
Page 54 and 55: 46157. Proof of an ancestral and mo
Page 56 and 57:
48uncertainty”. 272 The meaning o
Page 58 and 59:
50therefore, of opinion, that all n
Page 60 and 61:
52land regularly used by the Tsilhq
Page 62 and 63:
54stated that it depends on the fac
Page 64 and 65:
56the lands in question. At common
Page 66 and 67:
58193. Moreover, the Trial Judge’
Page 68 and 69:
60PART 4 - NATURE OF THE ORDER SOUG
Page 70 and 71:
62R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2
show all

Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?