Date: 19980417
Docket: T-267-97
BETWEEN:
FRANCES RECALMA,
Plaintiff,
- and -
QUALICUM BAND OF INDIANS, BARBARA BURNS,
MARJORIE ORRICK and PATRICIA CASSIDY,
Defendants.
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This matter came before me at Vancouver on Monday, April 6, 1998. After a brief discussion with counsel for both parties, it became evident that the issues involved could more properly be resolved through mediation rather than a full blown trial. This dispute centres on a personal service contract of the Plaintiff which was terminated by the Defendants in August of 1996. This case deals with an Indian Band that has a total of 33 qualified members who have the right to vote at band elections. Apparently this small group is divided into two competing families, one supporting the Plaintiff, the other the Defendants.
[2] In June of 1995, the Plaintiff was hired as the Band Administrator for a term of two years ending March 9, 1997. The employment contract provided for severance pay of 26 weeks in the event of dismissal; this represents a sum of a little in excess of $17,000.
[3] Shortly after the election of a new Band Council in August of 1996 the Plaintiff received a letter from the Band Council terminating her employment. The debate arises out of the employment contract and whether or not this Plaintiff was discharged from her employment with or without just cause. Considering the number of people involved as well as the amount of money and the expense of proceeding to a full blown trial I determined that the matter should proceed to mediation: counsel for both parties reluctantly agreed.
[4] The action was commenced by a Statement of Claim in February 1997; a Statement of Defence was filed; the Plaintiff sought summary judgment; this was eventually dismissed and the matter ordered to proceed by way of a trial. Following the determination that the matter should proceed to trial, because viva voce evidence would be necessary, discoveries were arranged for February 10, 1998. Because of certain concerns raised by the Plaintiff, the discoveries were next scheduled for February 27, 1998 at which time all parties attended at the Central Reporting Service in Nanaimo. Upon arrival they were advised by the Plaintiff that she requested that a family member be allowed to sit with her throughout the examination; also that she did not want the three named Defendants to be present in the discovery room. The initial request for a family member to attend was denied since this member could eventually be a witness at trial. Eventually, because of the inability to arrive at some satisfactory arrangement, the discoveries did not proceed. Expenses were incurred by both parties.
[5] The Plaintiff has suggested that she would be intimidated to attend on discovery without some assistance and is apprehensive to be in the same room with the three Defendants.
[6] Motions came before me on April 6, 1998. One from the Plaintiff requesting that she be allowed to have someone in attendance with her during discovery and as well seeking to have the three named Defendants prohibited from attending. The Defendants filed their own motion objecting to these motions and asking the Court to direct as to how these issues should proceed.
[7] It became apparent to me that the amount of money involved and the time that it would take to conduct discovery, as well as the cost; taking into account the limited finances of such a very small Band, I felt it my duty to attempt to force mediation and I am so ordering.
(Sgd.) "P. Rouleau"
Judge
Vancouver, British Columbia
April 17, 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DATED: April 6, 1998
COURT NO.: T-267-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: FRANCES RECALMA
v.
QUALICUM BAND OF INDIANS et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU, J.
dated April 17, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. William Scott for Plaintiff
Mr. Samuel Stevens for Defendants
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hobbs, Hargrave
Naniamo, BC for Plaintiff
Stevens & Company
Parksville, BC for Defendants
Email this Content