Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., (1999) 180 F.T.R. 243 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 03, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 180 F.T.R. 243 (TD)

Samson Indian Band v. Can. (1999), 180 F.T.R. 243 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.029

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) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment, and the Minister of Finance (defendants) (T-2022-89)

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 Nation, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Finance (defendants)

(T-1254-92)

Indexed As: Samson Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

December 14, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the Crown for its man­agement of oil and gas resources. The plain­tiffs sought an order for ongoing disclosure of Crown material relat­ing to the underlying action.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, allowed the application.

Editor's Note: For related decisions see 141 F.T.R. 109; 184 N.R. 139 (appeal from 86 F.T.R. 1); 208 N.R. 306 (appeal from 97 F.T.R. 119 and 110 F.T.R. 134); 220 N.R. 41; 221 N.R. 100 (appeal from 110 F.T.R. 96 and 119 F.T.R. 161); 57 F.T.R. 151; 99 F.T.R. 226; 110 F.T.R. 1 and 135 F.T.R. 187.

Practice - Topic 4551

Discovery - Production and inspection of documents - General - Circumstances when available - The plaintiffs sought an order for ongoing disclosure against the Crown -The Crown argued that it would be impos­sible to comply due to the volume of material involved - The plaintiff wanted production of all relevant docu­ments up to the time of trial - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the appli­cation - The duty to disclose all relevant documents remained, no matter how oner­ous - However, the Crown did not have to continually search for all rel­evant docu­ments - The affidavit of docu­ments required production of docu­ments within the affiant's knowledge - The Crown could check and update the produc­tion of docu­ments with a monitor­ing sys­tem in all departments hav­ing infor­mation relat­ing to the action.

Cases Noticed:

Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. (1998), 227 A.R. 361 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Bank of Montreal v. 3D Properties Inc. et al. (No. 3) (1993), 110 Sask.R. 302 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Montana Indian Band v. Canada et al. (1999), 172 F.T.R. 46 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

James O'Reilly, Ed Molstad, Marco Poretti and Doug Rae, for Chief Victor Buffalo and others;

Marvin Storrow, Maria Moralleto, Johanne Lysyk and Joni Paulus, for Chief Ermineskin and others;

Alan MacLeod, Clarke Hunter and Mary Comeau, for the Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

O'Reilly Mainville & Associates, Montreal, Quebec, for Chief Victor Buf­falo and others;

Parlee & McLaws, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, for Chief Victor Buffalo and others;

Rae & Company, Calgary, Alberta, for Chief Victor Buffalo and others;

Blake, Cassels, Graydon, Malcolm, Maclean, Vancouver, British Columbia and Calgary, Alberta, for Chief Ermineskin and others;

MacLeod & Dixon, Calgary, Alberta, for the Crown.

This application was heard in Calgary, Alberta, on November 3, 1999, and in Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, on December 2, 1999, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 14, 1999.