William v. British Columbia et al., 2002 BCCA 434

• Judge: Rowles, Donald and Huddart, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: July 19, 2002
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2002 BCCA 434;(2002), 170 B.C.A.C. 257 (CA)

William v. B.C. (2002), 170 B.C.A.C. 257 (CA);

    279 W.A.C. 257

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.040

Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation (respondent/plaintiff) v. Riverside Forest Products Limited (defendant) and The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada (appellants/defendants)

(CA029284 and CA029290)

Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation (respondent/plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region and the Attorney General of Canada (appellants/defendants) and Riverside Forest Products Limited (defendants)

(CA029285 and CA029289) (2002 BCCA 434)

Indexed As: William v. British Columbia et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Donald and Huddart, JJ.A.

July 19, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiffs made claims of aboriginal rights and title to certain lands within the Cariboo region of British Columbia. The plaintiffs applied for an order that the pro­vincial and federal Crowns pay their legal fees and disbursements or, alternatively, the costs in advance of the trial and in any event of the cause.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 1641, dismissed the application for payment of legal fees, but granted an order for payment of interim future costs, to be paid as increased costs at 50 percent of special costs, plus all reasonable disbursements as agreed to by the provincial and federal Crowns or as approved on taxation. The provincial and federal Crowns, with leave, appealed the order. The plaintiffs, also with leave, cross-appealed the dismissal of their application for payment of legal fees (to be dealt with later).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: see also a related case at [2001] B.C.T.C. 409.

Practice - Topic 7883

Costs - Funding before judgment - When available - The plaintiffs claimed aborig­inal rights and title to certain B.C. lands - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of an order for pay­ment, equally by the defendant provincial and federal Crowns, of the plaintiffs' future costs of trial, payable as increased costs at 50 percent of special costs, plus all rea­sonable disbursements - The court affirmed that there were special, excep­tional or unique circumstances that war­ranted such an order - A contingency fee agreement was neither realistic nor appro­priate - The issues for trial, including the "reserve creation" defence, constituted a test case, and were likely to have signifi­cant precedential value - Who brought the matter before the court and the mechanism that triggered the action were not con­siderations - See paragraphs 122 to 138.

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al. (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 13; 263 W.A.C. 13; 208 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 95 B.C.L.R.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Jules - see British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al.

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1991), 79 D.L.R.(4th) 185 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Muhammad v. State Petroleum Corp. (1996), 20 B.C.L.R.(3d) 350 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Organ v. Barnett (1992), 11 O.R.(3d) 210 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 47].

Amcan Industries Corp. v. Toronto-Do­min­ion Bank et al. (1998), 71 O.T.C. 131 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 47].

Randle v. Randle (1999), 254 A.R. 323; 3 R.F.L.(5th) 139 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Turner v. Andrews et al. (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 305; 241 W.A.C. 305; 85 B.C.L.R.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Spracklin v. Kichton (2001), 294 A.R. 44; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 222 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

McDonald v. Horn, [1995] 1 All E.R. 961 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Roberts v. Aasen, [1999] O.T.C. Uned. 471 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Simms v. Simms (1995), 165 N.B.R.(2d) 245; 424 A.P.R. 245 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 47].

Redfearn v. Elkford (District) (1999), 130 B.C.A.C. 257; 211 W.A.C. 257; 37 C.P.C.(4th) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R.C. v. Québec (Procureur général) (2002), 289 N.R. 206 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Beauchamps v. Québec (Procureur général) - see R.C. v. Québec (Procureur général).

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al. (1999), 25 B.C.T.C. 161; 37 C.P.C.(4th) 224 (S.C.), affd. (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 146; 226 W.A.C. 146; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 664 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2001] S.C.R. viii; 267 N.R. 392; 150 B.C.A.C. 319; 245 W.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 69].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 83].

Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Colum­bia et al. (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 248; 235 W.A.C. 248; 80 B.C.L.R.(3d) 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

William v. British Columbia et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 409 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 106].

Taku River First Nation et al. v. Tulsequah Chief Mine Project (Project Assessment Director) et al. (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 164; 267 W.A.C. 164; 98 B.C.L.R.(3d) 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minis­ter of Forests) et al. (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 217; 268 W.A.C. 217; 99 B.C.L.R.(3d) 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Carrier Lumber Ltd. v. British Columbia (1999), 18 B.C.T.C. 241; 47 B.L.R.(2d) 50 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia Treaty Commission, A Review of the B.C. Treaty Process (Sep­tember 2001), generally [para. 134].

British Columbia Treaty Commis­sion, 2001 Annual Report, p. 19 [para. 115].

Hunter, J.J.L., Advancing Aboriginal Title Claims After Delgamuukw - The Role of the Injunction, for the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, Litigating Aboriginal Title (June 22, 2000), pp. 1.3 to 1.3.24 [para. 106].

Counsel:

K.J. Tyler and R.J.M. Fyfe, for the appel­lants, Regional Manager and British Columbia;

G. Donegan, Q.C., and B. McLaughlin, for the appellant, Attorney General of Canada;

J.J. Arvay, Q.C., and D. Robbins, for the respondent;

S.B. Margolis, for Riverside Forest Prod­ucts Ltd.

This appeal was heard on May 6, 7 and 8, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Rowles, Donald and Huddart, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on July 19, 2002, by Rowles, J.A.