Ermineskin v. Canada

Ermineskin v. Canada

Applying Rule 289 and the authorities, the Court concluded that certain specifically identified portions of discovery transcripts, undertaking responses and a piece of correspondence are sufficiently related to the plaintiffs' read‑in evidence that they must be added to exhibit E-795 to place that evidence in fair context, and denied the Crown's other requests; the plaintiffs were given leave to notify the Court within seven days if they elect to withdraw any read‑ins in response to the ordered additions.

Citation
2004 FC 473
Parties
Plaintiffs: Chief Ermineskin et al.; Defendants: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; The Minister of Finance
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (aboriginal Claim) / Trial — Oral Motion Re Discovery (rule 289) / Reasons for Order
Outcome
Crown application partially granted and partially denied
Legal Topics
Discovery, Admissibility of Discovery Evidence, Rule 289 Federal Courts Rules, Read‑in Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Aboriginal Law Discovery Admissibility of Discovery Evidence Rule 289 Federal Courts Rules Read‑in Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Ermineskin et al.

Plaintiffs

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; The Minister of Finance

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (aboriginal Claim) / Trial — Oral Motion Re Discovery (rule 289) / Reasons for Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order additional portions of examinations for discovery be introduced as part of the plaintiffs' read‑in evidence under Rule 289
  2. 2 Whether the Crown's specific requests for additional material are sufficiently related to the read‑in material that they ought not be omitted
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs may withdraw discovery read‑ins if the Court orders inclusion of additional material

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Rule 289 and the authorities, the Court concluded that certain specifically identified portions of discovery transcripts, undertaking responses and a piece of correspondence are sufficiently related to the plaintiffs' read‑in evidence that they must be added to exhibit E-795 to place that evidence in fair context, and denied the Crown's other requests; the plaintiffs were given leave to notify the Court within seven days if they elect to withdraw any read‑ins in response to the ordered additions.

Court Disposition

Crown application partially granted and partially denied

Orders

  • Add to Ermineskin's tab 63: page 1071, line 9 to page 1072, line 6.
  • Add to Ermineskin's tab 83: page 1487, line 5 to page 1488, line 21.