Beattie v. Canada
T-2216-91 / T-361-93
Hargrave P.
26/1/95
12 pp.
Motions for leave to amend defences-R. 402(4) providing where any ground of defence arising after defence filed, defendant may, by leave of Court file further defence -- Plaintiff claiming benefit by descent of 1921 treaty under which Crown agreeing to provide such assistance as is deemed necessary for Indian signatories to follow agricultural pursuits -- In 1990 plaintiff proposing ginseng farming project -- Applied under Treaty for substantial government assistance -- When funding not forthcoming plaintiff commenced action claiming loss of Treaty benefits -- Defendant filed statement of defence -- In 1993 plaintiff commencing action for reimbursement of legal expenses, exemplary damages -- Under Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement made September 6, 1993, signatories gave up rights under agricultural assistance provision in Treaty -- Amendments seek to plead Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, approved, given effect and declared valid by Parliament in Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claims Settlement Act, under which plaintiff allegedly ceded any rights arising out of Treaty -- Plaintiff opposing amendments as (1) substantially expanding number, complexity of issues including authority, capacity of signatories to Land Claim Agreement to bind plaintiff and whether plaintiff Sahtu Dene or Metis; (2) no jurisdiction in Federal Court to decide whether plaintiff member of Sahtu Dene or Metis as Federal Court Act, s. 17(6) providing where Act of Parliament conferring jurisdiction on provincial court, no jurisdiction in Trial Division and Agreement conferring jurisdiction as to disputes arising out of Agreement on Supreme Court of Northwest Territories; (3) amendments premature, speculative until status of plaintiff defined by competent court -- General principles governing amendments: all necessary amendments ought to be allowed to determine real question in controversy between parties to any proceedings; defects in framing case ought to be corrected if possible to do without injustice; amendment ought to be allowed if raises real, substantial issue between parties -- As release in Land Claim Agreement may be most important part of Crown's case, and notwithstanding amendment will introduce number of complex, time consuming issues, amendment ought to be allowed -- Proceedings not progressed beyond filing of defences -- Amendments arguable, although to test them there ought to be complete evidence on which to make argument -- So long as amendments requested in timely fashion, in good faith and fall within general principles above, Motions Judge ought not to consider whether proposed amendment will be successful at trial -- Nothing in Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claims Settlement Act compelling conclusion Parliament conferring statutory force upon Land Claim Agreement -- As Agreement not Act of Parliament, s. 17(6) not bar to jurisdiction -- Alternatively privative provision only with respect to judicial review of arbitration proceedings -- Reinforced by provision "nothing in this chapter limits the jurisdiction of any court" -- Jurisdiction in Federal Court for purpose of action to determine if plaintiff able to benefit from Treaty and whether plaintiff bound by release of Treaty obligation -- Amendments allowed as no good reason to deny them and every reason to allow them to deal with new, real, and substantial issues, which may well be essential to Crown's case -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 324, 402(4) -- Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-10, s. 17(6) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 3) -- Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claims Settlement Act, S.C. 1994, c. 27.