Louis Bull Band v. Canada
T-2953-93 / T-2954-93 / T-57-99 / T-61-99
MacKay J.
26/10/99
20 pp.
Consolidation of proceedings-Statements of claim-Louis Bull, Montana Bands filing actions in 1993 claiming entitlement to 25% of all damages suffered by reason of defendant's breach of trust, fiduciary and equitable obligations owed to plaintiffs in relation to Pigeon Lake Reserve and 25% of all profits, recoveries, royalties derived from production of oil, gas resources from Reserve-Parties agreeing 1993 actions to remain dormant pending determination of similar facts, issues raised in 1989 actions commenced by Samson, Ermineskin Bands-In 1999 Louis Bull, Montana Bands commencing actions for declarations, damages in relation to moneys paid as royalties, revenues earned from oil, gas production from Pigeon Lake Reserve in which each of Bands claiming entitled to 25% of total royalties, revenues held, paid by defendant for or to four bands entitled to share in royalties-Crown contending statement of claim in each of 1999 actions essentially same as 1993 actions-38 paragraphs of 1993 actions identical to 38 of 39 paragraphs in 1999 statements-Differing paragraph setting out claims for relief-Plaintiff Bands claiming actions different in claims, relief sought; paragraphs in 1993 actions having no counterpart in 1999 statements-1993 actions substantially broader in scope than 1999 actions, with more allegations of particular wrongdoing, resulting relief claimed-Because of those differences, trial of 1993 actions expected to require substantially more time than trial of 1999 actions-Despite differences, substantial number of identical paragraphs, reflecting reality underlying bases of both actions, factual background and legal principles that apply to define relationship between plaintiff Bands, Crown same-Both actions seeking damages, declaratory relief and for all claims in both actions underlying relationship of parties, obligations arising therefrom, relief, will need to be determined-Doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel not applicable, yet underlying principles of those doctrines may have persuasive value, to require determination of all issues arising in cause of action between same parties to be made once and for all, thus avoiding duplication of proceedings, unnecessary use of judicial resources, possibility of conflicting decisions-Situation warranting order of Court, on own initiative, to consolidate 1993, 1999 actions pursuant to r. 105-Consolidation preserving all claims, forms of relief-Not intended to prejudice plaintiffs' desire to have relief claimed in 1999 action dealt with as quickly as possible, for under 106 Court may order one or more claims raised in single proceeding be pursued separately where hearing of two or more claims would cause undue complication or delay or would prejudice party-At appropriate time plaintiffs may propose trial of issue for which evidentiary base laid-Court of own motion, may order trial of issue pursuant to r. 107-Where facts agreed upon, parties may state case for determination pursuant to r. 220-Actions ordered consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, promote more expeditious, less expensive process than separate actions-In two actions as now framed, parties common, legal, factual issues substantially common, much evidence common-Order also providing for extension of time to 45 days after filing further amended statement of claim, for defendant to file statement of defence-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, rr. 106, 107, 220.