Martel v. Samson Band of Indians, docket T-2391-88

Date: 20000524

Docket: T-2391-88

BETWEEN:

     LOUISE MARTEL, MARY GROSS, DORA THOMSON, MONICA GLADEAU,

     MILDRED BARIL, CORA ARNOLD, EMILY STOYKA, FLORA ANDERSON,

     PATRICIA JONES, HAZEL FREEMAN, JOYCE P. COOK, SARAH SCHUG,

     ELIZABETH PERROTT, NORA ORR, MARY MIERAU,

     MARLENE COURTOREILLE and JANICE WANDA LIGHTNING

     Plaintiffs

     - a nd -

     CHIEF JIM OMEASOO, THE COUNCIL OF THE SAMSON BAND

     and THE SAMSON BAND OF INDIANS

     Defendants

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and

     THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

     Defendants

     AND

     Docket: T-1244-92

BETWEEN:

     PERCY RICHARD WARD and BERT WARD

     Plaintiffs

     - and -

     SAMSON CREE NATION NO. 444 and

     CHIEF AND COUNCIL OF SAMSON CREE NATION NO. 444

     Defendants

     - and -

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by

     THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AND INUIT AFFAIRS

     Defendants

     AND

     Docket: T-2204-93

BETWEEN:

     SHIRLEY MARIE YELLOWBIRD

     Plaintiff

     - and -

     CHIEF AND COUNCIL SAMSON CREE NATION No. 444

     and SAMSON CREE NATION NO. 444

     Defendants

     - and -

    

     HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and

     THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS

     Defendants

     REASONS FOR ORDER

HUGESSEN J.

[1]      In all three of these files, the defendant Band has made a motion requesting (1) that the files be jointly case managed by me and (2) that they be tried together. The first of those conclusions could only be dealt with by the Associate Chief Justice to whom I accordingly referred the motions and he has now given an order as a result of which I am the case management judge in all three actions.

[2]      The plaintiffs in two of the files (Ward and Yellowbird) and the defendant Crown in all three actions have objected to an order being made at this time for a joint trial as being premature. I agree. If and when one of the cases is at a stage where a pre-trial conference is requested, I shall reassess the question as to whether and to what extent it may be appropriate to join trial of some issues. Until that time, I shall continue to manage all three cases separately, but having in mind, of course, that there is a degree of interrelationship between them.

[3]      That part of the motion seeking an order for a joint trial will accordingly be dismissed as premature.

     "James K. Hugessen"

     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

May 24, 2000