Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society et al., (2015) 367 B.C.A.C. 92 (CA)

• Judge: Groberman, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 16, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 92 (CA);2015 BCCA 77

Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Soc. (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 92 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 92

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.014

Spookw also known as Geri McDougall on behalf of herself and other Gitxsan Chiefs and members, Baskyalaxha also known as William Blackwater Sr., Suu Dii also known as Yvonne Lattie, Luutkudziiwuus also known as Charlie Wright, Xsimwits Inn also known as Lester Moore, Moolxhan also known as Noola and as Norman Moore, Gitanmaax Indian Band, Glen Vowell Indian Band, Gitwangak Indian Band, Kispiox Indian Band, and Gitksan Local Services Society (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Gitxsan Treaty Society, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada (respondents/defendants)

(CA041986; 2015 BCCA 77)

Indexed As: Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Groberman, J.A.

January 16, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were Gitxsan houses. They disputed the right of the defendant Gitxsan Treaty Society (Society) to speak on behalf of them during consultations and negotiations with the Crown and claimed that the Society was wrongly purporting to represent them in discussions with the Crown. The plaintiffs sought the winding up of the Society. The plaintiffs also sued the Crown, both federal and provincial, asserting that it had breached its obligations to the plaintiffs by conducting consultations and negotiations with the Society. The plaintiffs sought an order for leave to amend their Notice of Civil Claim to "further and better [articulate] the factual basis of their claim so that the matters in dispute will be fully presented to the court." The defendants did not consent to the amendments, and moved to strike the plaintiffs' claim altogether.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1100, found that nothing in the proposed revisions was potentially decisive. Accordingly, it assumed for the purposes of the motions to strike, that the amendments to the pleadings had been granted, and considered the motions to strike first. The court struck the statement of claim and dismissed the action as against all the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. The Tsetsaut/Skii km Lax Ha Nation (TSKLH) applied for leave to intervene in the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Groberman, J.A., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 682

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Interest in subject matter - See paragraphs 6 to 17.

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Ahousaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 312; 553 W.A.C. 312; 2012 BCCA 330, affd. (2012), 328 B.C.A.C. 225; 558 W.A.C. 225; 2012 BCCA 404, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

M.L. Macaulay and C. Joseph, for the appellants;

A. Schalles, for the respondent, Gitxsan Treaty Society;

K.J. Phillips, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia;

N. Wright and A. Singh, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

M.C. Power and D.P. Taylor, for the proposed intervenor, Tsetsaut/Skii km Lax Ha Nation.

This application was heard in chambers at Vancouver, B.C., on January 16, 2015, by Groberman, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following oral reasons for judgment on the same date.