Date: 19981016 Docket: T-299-98
BETWEEN:
PETER JOSEPH YELLOWQUILL,
applicant,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
respondent,
MARVIN DANIELS in his capacity as holder of the disputed Office of the Chief, David Meeches, Selma Francis/Perswain, Tony Daniels, and Lloyd Longclaws, holders of the disputed offices of Councillors
for the Long Plain First Nation, the Long Plain First Nation Council and Margaret Assiniboine/Myran in her capacity , as Electoral Officer
respondents.
Let the attached corrected transcript of my Order and Reasons for Order delivered orally
from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on October 7, 1998, be filed to comply with s. 51 of the
Federal Court Act.
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO October 16, 1998
ORDER RE COSTS
Mr. Yellowquill's application for the appointment of a Receiver/Manager was granted, and therefore, he is entitled to costs. I do not see any special reasons not to award him costs for this particular application.
In order to avoid the possibility of future litigation as to whether some costs and disbursements should be paid, or should not be paid, which would only incur more costs and more disbursements, I am going pursuant to Rule 3,to fix a lump sum for the costs of $5000 plus disbursements. The disbursements are only to relate to the application for the Receiver/Manager, and not for the grantr_JJudicial Review application. I can set the figure now at $3,000, if that's what Mr. Hacault tells me is the amount and include it all.
MR. JONES: It is up to you.
THE COURT: So, therefore, the lump sum, including disbursements payable for costs on the application for the Receiver/Manager is $8,000 for the following reasons:
In accordance with Rule 400(3)(a), the result C the proceedîngs ys that the apr?icant was granted his application for Receiver/Manager. It is quite true
that the respondents, acting in good faith, had said they would agree to the appointment of a Receiver/Manager, but they said they would agree to a Receiver/Manager if the respondents were the Receiver/Manager. It is within the rights of the applicant to say, well, hold on a moment, I am asking for a Receiver/Manager because I believe that the Council shouldn't be sitting there at this time and soy therefore, I am asking for a Receiver/Manager until a new election takes place.
I think I am satisfied that this application was not made in bad faith by the applicant, nor is there bad faith by the respondents.
The amounts claimed and the amounts recovered, of course, don't apply because this is not a civil action.
The importance and complexity of the issues. I think this is a very important subparagraph to Rule 400(3). When there are disputes between membersoF'a family" these kindsof disputes become complicated. It is possible that what Rule 400(3)(C) refers to is judicial, legal complications or complexity but in this particular case, there are special =ir-mstances, there is ;nf;ghting between members of a "family," again, I use the word "family" in
quotation marks, and this causes all kinds of serious rifts, which I hope will be healed.
I have set the amount at $5000, because I believe that this is lesser than the full amount of costs that I could have awarded. Because there was this attempt to settle, whereby the members of the council said yes, we agree to a Receiver/Manager but we want to be it, so I took that into account as well. Looking at the other sub parts of Rule 400(3), I think it is not necessary for me to make additional comments because if I do, it could only cause more aggravation, and I don't want to favour one side over the other, especially with the coming election.
I just want to say that I think the sum of $5000, plus $3,000 for disbursements, for a total sum of $8000, is a very just amount of money for costs, notwithstanding the fact that, under normal circumstances, the work value made by Mr. Hacault is in excess of the sum of $5000.
I do not know if it is within my jurisdiction to discuss the issue that the Long Plain Indian Band does not have the money to pay the costs immediately. I am going to rely, if I can, and I pray I can, _r_ the good fa-±?-, of both --sides, to come to some kind of an agreement as to how this money of $8Oû0
should be paid. I do not want to see any writs of execution issue in order to get this money paid. That will only cause, again, more problems for all of the community meaning all of the members of this band.
I am going to leave it to the good faith of the parties. I am leaving my decision as it is, and if I can offer my services to negotiate a method of how the costs should be paid, I am prepared to do.
I again wanted to say thank you for the amount of cooperation shown. I want to thank both Mr. Jones and Mr. Hacault for the manner in which they have conducted themselves throughout the hearing and in the manner in which they conducted themselves to protect the interests of their clients.
I hope, and, I repeat, and I express my sincere wish that the election is done properly and legally. As I have told you, I have seized myself with this case, as I believe it is in the interests of the parties that one judge be seized with whatever matters may come about in the forseeable future anyway.
Thank you and all I can say is good luck to all of the parties.
MR. JONES: Thank you. My Lord.
M R. û7~LM.:L^'. Thank you,
My Tord. g=ood
.
morning.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-299-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER JOSEPH YELLOWQUILL
v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ET AL
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 1998
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
DATED: October 16, 1998
APPEARANCES
Mr. Antoine Hacault FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Thor Hartsell FOR RESPONDENT Mrs. Assiniboine
Mr. Rhys Jones FOR RESPONDENTS except Mrs. Assiniboine
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Thompson, Dorfman Sweatman
Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR APPLICANT
Aikins MacAulay & Thorvaldson
Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR RESPONDENT Mrs. Assiniboine
Lofchick, Jones & Associates
Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR RESPONDENTS except Mrs. Assiniboine