BEAVER LAKE CREE NATION v ALBERTA

The Plaintiff, Beaver Lake Cree Nation (“Beaver Lake”), applied to further amend its Statement of Claim in a long-standing litigation concerning Treaty 6 rights. The core of the Action involved allegations that the cumulative effects of Crown authorizations infringed Beaver Lake’s Treaty rights and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

The proposed amendments sought to place the words “cede” and “surrender” in quotation marks and clarify that those terms appeared in the written Treaty. Beaver Lake maintained that the amendments were intended to reflect that the Treaty must be interpreted as a whole, including both its written terms and the Crown’s oral assurances.

The Defendants opposed the Application, arguing that the amendments would reframe the litigation from a cumulative effects case to one questioning the fundamental nature and interpretation of Treaty 6. They contended that Beaver Lake was attempting to withdraw a long-standing admission regarding land surrender, which would upend the litigation as it neared Trial.

Justice Jerke noted that pursuant to Rule 3.65, the Court has discretion to grant permission to amend a pleading after the close of pleadings. In exercising that discretion, Jerke J. also considered Rule 1.2, which requires claims to be resolved fairly, justly, and in a timely, cost-effective manner by identifying the real issues and achieving the quickest and least expensive resolution.

The Court weighed the potential benefits of the amendments against the concerns raised by the Defendants. Jerke J. found that there was no discernible benefit because the legal principles requiring a flexible, purposive, and contextual interpretation of historic treaties had already been established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Although Rule 4.14 allows concerns regarding admissions and evidentiary issues to be addressed through pre-Trial adjudication, Justice Jerke concluded that permitting the amendments could necessitate further pleadings, document production, and Questioning, which could potentially affect the Trial schedule. The Court also noted that while Rule 13.8 permits parties to plead points of law, it is not a requirement, particularly where the relevant legal principles are already well settled.

In the result, the Application was dismissed.