Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020819     

Docket: T-2022-89/T-1254-92

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 889

CALGARY, Alberta, Monday, the 19th day of August, 2002.

PRESENT:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM

                                                                                                                                                      T-2022-89

BETWEEN:

CHIEF VICTOR BUFFALO acting on his own behalf and on behalf of all of the other members of the Samson Indian Nation and Band

- and -

THE SAMSON INDIAN BAND AND NATION,

                                                                                                                                               PLAINTIFFS

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT and THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

                                                                                                                                           DEFENDANTS

AND

CHIEF JEROME MORIN acting on his own behalf as well as on behalf of all the MEMBERS OF ENOCH'S BAND OF INDIANS AND THE RESIDENTS THEREOF ON AND OF STONY PLAIN RESERVE NO. 135

                                                                                                                                         INTERVENORS

AND

EMILY STOYKA and SARA SCHUG

                                                                                                                                         INTERVENORS


AND BETWEEN:

                                                                                                                                                      T-1254-92

CHIEF ERMINESKIN, LAWRENCE WILDCAT, GORDON LEE, ART LITTLECHILD, MAURICE WOLFE, CURTIS ERMINESKIN, GERRY ERMINESKIN, EARL ERMINESKIN, RICK WOLFE, KEN CUTARM, BRIAN LEE, LESTER FRAYNN, the elected Chief and Councillors of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nations suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation

                                                                                                                                                        Plaintiffs

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

                                                                                                                                                    Defendants

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

TEITELBAUM, J.:

[1]                 The Defendant Crown has filed into the Office of the Registry of the Federal Court a motion for an Order pursuant to Rules 271 and 273 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 to allow the evidence of Crown witness Mr. E. A. Moore to be taken outside of Court and recorded on videotape.


[2]                 I agree with the Crown, that given Mr. Moore's age (he is presently 81 years of age), his importance as a witness for the Crown, and the length of time it will likely take before the Crown will present its defence during the oil and gas phase of the proceedings, the evidence of this witness must be taken outside of Court so that it is preserved and available for the Court.

[3]                 However, in the event that Mr. Moore is alive, physically well and available when the Oil and Gas phase comes to trial, he will give his evidence in Court at that time. Any videotapes and transcripts stemming from his out of Court testimony will be duly disregarded. In making this particular, and in my opinion important point, I am guided by the recent Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen in Dene Tsaa First Nation v. Canada, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1107. In that case, Mr. Justice Hugessen granted an Order permitting the Crown to examine a witness on commission and out of Court prior to trial. The witness was of advanced years, had experienced some health problems, and was a potentially important witness. The Court went on to note that an Order for the out of Court examination of a witness who is in Canada, is always made de bene esse, for what it may be worth; if the witness is alive and available at the time of trial, he is to give his evidence in that forum.

                                                                            ORDER

UPON MOTION on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen for an Order pursuant to Rules 271and 273 of the Federal Court Rules, permitting the Crown to have the evidence of Mr. E. A. Moore on the oil and gas phase of these proceedings taken out of Court, and that the evidence be recorded on videotape,


THIS COURT ORDERS that,

1.                    The motion made by the defendant Crown seeking an Order pursuant to Federal Court Rules 271 and 273 is allowed, in that the witness, Mr. E. A. Moore, may give evidence outside of Court on the oil and gas issue before any other person appointed by the Associate Chief Justice or his representative, at a time approved by the Associate Chief Justice or his representative;

2           That the said examination shall take place no later than during the month of August 2003;

3.         That the said examination shall be videotaped;

4.         The costs of the videotaping shall be paid by the Defendant Crown; and

5.         All other costs arising from the examination of Mr. Moore are to be addressed at a later date.

   

                                                                                                                                    "Max M. Teitelbaum"

                                                                                                                                                       J. F. C. C.


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    

DOCKETS:                                        T-2022-89 and T-1254-92

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           Chief Victor Buffalo et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al.

Chief John Ermineskin et al. v. Her Majesty the

Queen et al.

PLACE OF HEARING:                     CALGARY, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING:                       July 16, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER :                                  TEITELBAUM, J.


DATED:                                                August 19, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Ed Molstad, Q.C.                                                                FOR PLAINTIFF SAMSON

T-2022-89

Ms. Maria Morellato                                                                 FOR PLAINTIFF

ERMINESKIN

T-1254-92

Mr. Allan Macleod, Q.C.

Mr. Clarke Hunter                                                                      FOR HER MAJESTY THE

Mr. Ray Chartier                                                                         QUEEN

Mr. S. H. (Stan) Rutwind                                                            FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

FOR ALBERTA


                                                                                   

                                                                                 - 2 -

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Parlee McLaws                                                                            FOR PLAINTIFF SAMSON

Edmonton, Alberta                                                                       T-2022-89

Blake, Cassels & Graydon                                                        FOR PLAINTIFF

Vancouver, British Columbia                                                    ERMINESKIN

T-1254-92

Macleod Dixon LLP                                                                  FOR HER MAJESTY THE

Calgary, Alberta                                                                          QUEEN

Alberta Justice Constitutional                                                   FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

& Aboriginal Law                                                                         FOR ALBERTA


Edmonton, Alberta

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.