Lac La Ronge Indian Band et al. v. Canada and Saskatchewan, (1996) 147 Sask.R. 257 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 18, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 147 Sask.R. 257 (QB)

Lac La Ronge Indian Band v. Can. (1996), 147 Sask.R. 257 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Chief Myles Venne, and all of the Councillors of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, representing themselves and all other members of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, and all members of the James Roberts Band of Cree Indians and Amos Charles Band of Cree Indians, and all of the lawful successors of those two Bands (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan (defendants)

(1987 Q.B. No. 2655)

Indexed As: Lac La Ronge Indian Band et al. v. Canada and Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Grotsky, J.

September 18, 1996.

Summary:

The plaintiffs applied for an order requir­ing the defendant Canada to produce and disclose legal opinions and other documents relating to the treaty land entitlement of Indian bands.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. Solicitor and client privilege applied and had not been waived.

Practice - Topic 4577

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - At­torney-client communications - [See Practice - Topic 4585 ].

Practice - Topic 4585

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Waiver - The defendant Canada asserted that the date of first survey was the proper interpretation of its lawful obligation in relation to the treaty land entitlement of Indian bands - Canada stated that it had adopted a specific policy following con­sultation with counsel - The plaintiffs applied for an order requiring Canada to produce and disclose legal opinions and other documents relating to treaty land entitlement - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Solicitor and client privilege applied and had not been waived - Canada was not using legal advice to justify or excuse its actions (i.e. as a defence) - Canada was simply relating (pleading) one chrono­logical event in the development of gov­ernment policy.

Cases Noticed:

Harich v. Stamp (1979), 106 D.L.R.(3d) 340 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 9].

Hunter v. Rogers, [1982] 2 W.W.R. 189 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 9].

Nowak v. Sanyshyn (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 797 (Ont. H.C.), dist. [para. 9].

Rogers v. Bank of Montreal, [1985] 4 W.W.R. 508 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 9].

United States of America v. Exxon Corp. (1981), 94 F.R.D. 246 (D.C. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta Wheat Pool v. Dawson Resources Ltd. et al. (No. 1), [1987] 2 W.W.R. 532; 75 A.R. 348 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 9].

Alberta Wheat Pool v. Estrin and Dawson Resources Ltd. - see Alberta Wheat Pool v. Dawson Resources Ltd. et al. (No. 1).

Robertson Stromberg, Re (1994), 124 Sask.R. 259 (Q.B.), affd. (1995), 128 Sask.R. 107; 85 W.A.C. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 10].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 10].

Weiler v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [1991] 3 F.C. 617; 46 F.T.R. 163 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Shell Canada Ltd., Re (1975), 7 N.R. 157; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 713 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Director of Investigation & Research and Shell Canada Ltd., Re - see Shell Canada Ltd., Re.

Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commis­sioners (No. 2), [1972] 2 Q.B. 102 (C.A.), affd. [1974] A.C. 405 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. - see Crompton (Alfred) Amuse­ment Machines Ltd.

S. & K. Processors Ltd. v. Campbell Avenue Herring Producers Ltd. (1983), 35 C.P.C. 146 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

LaPointe et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1987] 1 F.C. 445; 6 F.T.R. 134 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Sabem Developments Ltd. v. Dutchmen Homes Ltd. (1976), 1 C.P.C. 101 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Biomedical Information Corp. v. Pearce (1985), 47 C.P.C. 113 (Ont. S.C. Mas­ter), refd to. [para. 10].

Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (No. 3), [1980] 3 All E.R. 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Buffalo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment) et al. (1995), 184 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manes and Silver, Solicitor-Client Privi­lege in Canadian Law (1993), pp. 187 to 209 [para. 15].

McDougall, John Lorn, Privilege in Civil Cases, Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures (1984), p. 131 [para. 12].

Counsel:

D.J. Kovatch and J.D. Jodouin, for the plaintiffs;

M.R. Kindrachuk, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada;

P.M. McAdam, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Saskatchewan.

This application was heard by Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on Septem­ber 18, 1996.