Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1988-12-05, 2] British Columbia. Supreme Court Dec 5, 1988

Item Metadata

Download

Media
delgamuukw-1.0019490.pdf
Metadata
JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019490.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019490-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019490-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019490-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019490-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019490-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019490-source.json
Full Text
delgamuukw-1.0019490-fulltext.txt
Citation
delgamuukw-1.0019490.ris

Full Text

 Submission by Mr. Grant  1 SMITHERS, B.C.  2 DECEMBER 5, 198 8  3  4 GEORGE HOLLAND, Interpreter: Previously sworn  5  6 ROY MORRIS, a witness herein called on behalf  7 of the Plaintiffs, having been duly sworn,  8 testifies as follows:  9  10 MR. GRANT:  Before we start, I maintain the same position with  11 respect to this witness as I did with Johnny David,  12 although in this case it's a discovery that occurred  13 on April 22nd, 1987, and I will object to questions of  14 this witness which are repetitious of the discovery,  15 except insofar as those questions relate to the  16 affidavit, and I know and I understand that there may  17 be overlap.  18 Secondly, I had in earlier correspondence in the  19 scheduling, indicated that this witness will be  20 translated.  That was raised before the Chief Justice  21 and the Chief Justice has made it clear that it's a  22 decision of counsel on each witness whether they are  23 translated or not.  I know, and to save time, I  24 appreciate that during the discovery on April 22nd,  25 1987, Mr. Morris was not translated, and I have  26 reviewed this discovery and I think that one of the  27 major problems with this discovery, and from my  28 experience with this witness out of court, is that he  29 was not translated.  It is clear in page after page  30 that he did not understand questions and that he  31 didn't put his mind to the answers.  And in fact, near  32 the end of the discovery, there was no doubt an  33 attempt to rectify that through some re-examination  34 and some clarification.  35 The other area that was raised in the discovery,  36 which of course you are entitled to examine on and I'm  37 not objecting to, is with respect to the documents  38 referred to in paragraph 62 -- question 62 of this  39 witness' interrogatory.  And I wish to advise you that  40 it was not through any -- it was through inadvertence  41 that we have not produced these documents this morning  42 for you.  I understand from Mr. Morris that there are  43 such documents, and I think if we schedule ourselves  44 appropriately that at the noon hour he -- if we take a  45 longer noon break he may be able to get them or  46 arrange for someone to bring them down.  Alterna-  47 tively, we will have them available for tomorrow Submission by Mr. Grant  1 morning, if this cross-examination goes so far,  2 something which I personally am adverse to because I  3 think it could cause problems with the scheduling  4 tomorrow.  I hope we can avoid that.  So, I would --  5 this last comment is to avoid you having to ask  6 questions with respect to paragraphs 62 and 63.  7 Now, we are not objecting, of course, to the  8 production of such documents.  It's through no fault  9 of this witness that I don't have them here today, and  10 I have absolutely no objection to the fact that you  11 can -- you should be able to see them before you  12 complete this cross-examination.  13 And Mr. Holland will translate for this witness.  14 He has been previously sworn to translate from  15 Wet'suwet'en into English and from English into  16 Wet'suwet'en, and I don't think it's necessary to  17 reswear him for this cross-examination.  18 Just one moment before you commence.  I want to  19 put one other matter on the record because I don't  20 want you to be misled.  I'm referring to Exhibit 670  21 of this witness, and I'm referring in particular to  22 paragraph 4 -- paragraphs 4 and 11.  Now firstly, I am  23 instructed that this affidavit was translated in part  24 to the witness, it was not translated in total.  That  25 may -- I think that explains, in part, this difficulty  26 that arose, but I believe that the descriptions were  27 translated to the witness and a translation affidavit  28 will be provided to you.  29 Paragraph 4 and paragraph 11 state:  30  31 "I was instructed about the Tseeyl Tsee Ke'ez  32 territory and its boundary by Charlie  33 Piist'ai', the former Piist'ai', a member of  34 the House of Smogelgem, Laksamshu Clan, who  35 is now deceased."  36  37 I've been instructed -- I, that is legal counsel,  38 have been instructed that that is a mistake.  The  39 witness will -- can talk to you about what Charlie  40 Piist'ai' did, but he was instructed about the  41 territory by the late Mary George, not Charlie  42 Piist'ai'.  But in his explanation he refers to  43 Charlie Piist'ai' and I think there was a misunder-  44 standing and it was a mistake in the drafting of the  45 affidavit based on those instructions.  46 The same applies to paragraph 11, and in fact in  47 paragraph 11 it should read instead of: I was inst  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Mr. Mackenzie 1  ructed about the Mesdzii Kwe  territory and its boundary by Charlie  Piist'ai', the former Piist'ai',"  it should read:  "I was instructed about the Mesdzii Kwe  territory and its boundary by Mary George, a  member of the House of Smogelgem, Laksamshu  Clan, who is now deceased."  MR. FREY  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  GRANT:  FREY:  GRANT:  FREY:  GRANT:  MR.  MR.  MR.  Mr. Grant, do you have a chief's name for Mary  George?  Just one moment.  Tsaibesa.  Mary George is Tsaibesa?  Tsaibesa, a chief in the House of Smogelgem.  T-S-A-I-B-E-S-A?  I'll leave that to Mr. Mitchell.  TRANSLATOR:  T-S-A-I-B-E-S-A.  GRANT:  Just one moment, Mr. Mackenzie.  Okay.  I will be asking, for the record, to have  the affidavit, paragraph 4 and paragraph 11, amended  accordingly.  I am satisfied that this was an error in  the drafting of the affidavit and it was not based  on -- and based on the fact that this witness can talk  about Charlie Piist'ai', but he was not the person  that informed this witness and there was a misunderstanding in the preparation.  MACKENZIE:  FREY:  Well, when a similar revision came up in the evidence  of Antoine Tom, the Chief Justice directed that you  could amend the affidavit but you just filed a new  affidavit with the changes.  Well, I'm not -- I view that as a technical issue as  to which way we go, and if Mr. Mackenzie is agreeable  to that approach -- but I just don't want to re-cross-  examination because a change comes up later, I want  you to have notice of it now.  I understand, it's just that was the direction that  was given previously by the Chief Justice.  That's fine.  We'll deal with that how the Chief  Justice proposes.  MACKENZIE:  Thank you for advising me of those items in  advance.  Perhaps I will just respond in the order of  the items as you have mentioned them.  The first issue raised was related to the  examination for discovery, and I'm going to be asking  MR.  MR.  MR. GRANT  FREY:  GRANT: Submission by Mr. Mackenzie  1 the witness questions from the examination for  2 discovery and I presume that you will be objecting to  3 them, from what you've said.  I don't want you to be  4 misled that I'm accepting your position.  5 Second point is on translation.  You advised me,  6 Mr. Grant, that Mr. Roy would have a back-up  7 translator but that he wouldn't be fully translated.  8 You will also recall the Chief Justice permitted  9 questions about English comprehension and so I propose  10 to ask questions along those lines.  11 On the documents which is the third point raised,  12 I understand what you've said, but just to make sure  13 that there is no misunderstanding of our position, I  14 want to record that on the -- as you mentioned, on the  15 examination for discovery on April 22, 1987, at page  16 8, Mr. Roy indicated that he did have certain  17 documents.  Those documents were referred to in his  18 interrogatory number 62 and 63 as you have pointed  19 out, and Mr. Plant requested that they be produced and  20 Mr. Roy agreed to produce them.  On November 11, Miss  21 Sigurdson wrote to you requesting production of these  22 documents.  23 MR. GRANT:  Of this year?  24 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  November 11, 1988.  And I wrote to you  25 requesting production of these documents on November  26 21, November 22 and December 3.  27 MR. GRANT:  These specific documents or reiterating Miss  28 Sigurdson's request?  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  No.  These specific documents.  My letters refer  30 only to Roy Morris.  I hope that that matter will be  31 resolved as you have suggested it will be with  32 production of the documents later today.  33 Yes, Mr. Holland has been sworn, I don't have any  34 objection to him translating.  35 MR. GRANT:  Is that all your points?  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  Just —  37 MR. GRANT:  Sorry.  38 MR. MACKENZIE:  One moment, please.  And you referred to the  39 affidavit and you amended the affidavit paragraphs 4  40 and 11.  I think I understand your position on this  41 now, but it's my view -- or my position that the  42 affidavit will have to be resworn according to the  43 Chief Justice's comments last week.  I agree with what  44 you said about no requirement for retranslation  45 subject to the --  46 MR. GRANT:  Re-examination.  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  Re-cross-examination.  Subject to the condition Submission by Mr. Grant  1 that there are no other changes made, and that's all  2 that I have in response to your comments.  3 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  Just one point is that I don't want there to  4 be any misleading on the understanding here.  You and  5 I discussed the question of translation in the  6 translation of Mr. Morris --  7 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  8 MR. GRANT:  -- in, as I recall, early November.  It was while we  9 were in Vancouver.  I had said that I would inquire  10 into the possibility that he was -- he only needed a  11 back-up translator.  It's since that time that I've  12 had the opportunity to discuss the matter with  13 co-counsel present during the discovery, review the  14 discovery, interview Mr. Morris, and realized the  15 necessity of full translation.  I do not -- I have not  16 read your December 3rd letter.  I am not saying it was  17 not delivered to my office.  I reviewed the  18 correspondence in my office and did not locate it.  I  19 will say that I don't recall the November 21st and  20 22nd letter that specifically referred to Roy Morris.  21 All of that is -- does not -- in other words, I cannot  22 recall whether I had read them or they were in the  23 hands of one of the other counsel.  24 All of that is not an excuse for nondelivery of  25 the documents, but in a case of this size and  26 magnitude, the fact that a request was made on  27 discovery in April 1987, there was no further follow-  28 up request until November 11th, 1988, it was an  29 oversight, obviously, on the part of counsel on both  30 sides, and I don't think that -- I just want it to be  31 clear that that should not be taken as any imputation  32 of the credibility of this witness.  It was something  33 that in the context of the case was not dealt with,  34 through inadvertence, and I think we can resolve it.  35 I have no objection to reswearing the affidavit  36 of Roy Morris and filing an amended Exhibit 670  37 according to my amendments, but I, of course -- the  38 understanding of all counsel present that that  39 wouldn't lead to further re-cross-examination because  40 I'm giving you notice of the amendments.  Those are  41 all my points.  42 Oh, I'm sorry.  On the discovery, of course you  43 can use a discovery transcript here in this cross-  44 examination just as you are entitled to in the  45 courtroom, that is to cross-examine on previous  46 statements.  And I am only saying that I don't believe  47 you are entitled to go into all of those areas once 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR  MR  FREY:  GRANT:  FREY:  GRANT:  Submission by Mr. Grant  again unless it's for the purposes that you use a  discovery transcript in court, and when using a  discovery you indicate the purpose that you are using  it, then it may avoid unnecessary objections.  MR. FREY:  Well, Mr. Grant, perhaps I can say the only  difficulty I have is that I understood from your  comments that page after page of the discovery  revealed that the witness did not understand the  questions that were being asked of him, and therefore  I just have a little bit of difficulty of not being  able to go into it again, if in fact the answers -- I  take it that what you are saying is as a result of the  process the answers aren't reliable?  MR. GRANT:  I'm not going to say that for each and every answer,  but I think it's obvious to anyone that reads this  discovery transcript that the witness didn't  understand many of the questions.  No, I accept that, but it's just a bit --  I'm not making a blanket objection on the use of the  discovery.  I'll deal with each question as it comes  up.  You have the point I'm making, that's fine.  Maybe we should put this first hour of discovery on  a separate transcript so the Chief Justice doesn't  have to go through all our discussions unnecessarily.  MACKENZIE:  I think he's going to enjoy those discussions.  GRANT:  I want to say, for the record, all this was taken in  a normal tone of voice and there was no yelling and  screaming thus far.  A high level of courtesy on the  part of all counsel.  Let us hope the rest of the day  goes the same way.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  That is the standard we have come to  expect from all counsel.  GRANT:  There was one matter, if I can raise this, on  translation, because this is the only matter, I think,  where Mr. Mackenzie and I have a difference on.  If  either on cross-examination or on redirect a question  is asked, the question is translated to the witness,  and the witness gives an answer in Wet'suwet'en, I  think that all counsel should agree that at that stage  no further -- no objection should be taken between the  Wet'suwet'en answer and the translation of that  answer.  That is entirely unfair to the translator,  and that is where in one incident counsel that are  present here had an altercation over that issue.  The  Chief Justice himself dealt with that last week with  Mr. David and allowed the translation of the answer to  MR  MR  MR  MR  MR  MR R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 be given.  Any interruption of that translation  2 process, I say, interferes with the interpreter -- the  3 translator's ability to translate.  So the objection  4 should be taken at the time the question is -- the  5 time the question is asked, or if the persons are  6 pausing before the witness starts to give his answer,  7 that is even if the question is translated to the  8 witness, then an objection can be taken.  But once the  9 answer starts coming from the witness I don't think we  10 should interfere with the translator's function.  11 MR. GRANT:  I take it there is no disagreement on that?  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  No disagreement.  13  14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MACKENZIE:  15 Q Mr. Morris, have you sworn this affidavit, Exhibit  16 670?  17 A Yes.  18 Q And did you swear it on April 19, 1988?  19 A Yes.  20 Q And where was the affidavit sworn?  21 A In Moricetown in my own house.  22 Q And who was present when you swore the affidavit?  23 A It was Marvin and the lawyer, Gordie.  24 Q Gordon Sebastian?  25 A Yes.  26 Q And was the affidavit translated to you?  27 A Some of it was translated in part to me by Rita.  28 Q And is that Rita George?  29 A Yes.  30 Q And when did Rita George translate it to you?  31 A It was translated at that same time.  We were all  32 invited there at that time.  33 Q Was Rita George present when you signed the affidavit?  34 A Yes.  35 Q Was anyone else present when you signed the affidavit?  36 A There was a lawyer, Marvin and Andy George, and also  37 my wife was there.  38 Q Okay.  And your wife's name is Augustine Morris?  39 A Yes.  4 0 Q And what is her chief's name?  41 A Gus ded'a lak'.  42 Q And which clan is -- which is her clan?  43 A She belongs to -- she belongs to the Mesdzii yex.  44 They also use the killer whale.  45 Q And do you know the name of your wife's house?  46 A All I know is they call it Mesdzii yex.  47 Q Is Mesdzii yex the name of your wife's house or your R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 wife's  clan?  2 A   Yes, I think it's a house name.  3 Q   And what is -- do you know your wife's clan name?  4 A   Laksamshu.  5 Q   Have you sworn any other affidavits before this one,  6 Exhibit 670?  7 A   I just wondered if you are -- we were preparing some  8 documents at the rec hall in Moricetown at one time.  9 I wonder if you would be referring to probably that  10 part of it.  That was sometime ago.  11 Q   Did you swear an affidavit at that time?  12 A   Yes.  I signed one in reference to the court case at  13 that time, I think.  14 MR. GRANT:  Sorry, Mr. Mackenzie, you hadn't put another  15 affidavit -- or are you suggesting another affidavit  16 to the witness other than Exhibit 670.  17 MR. MACKENZIE:  No.  I asked whether he had signed any other  18 affidavits before 670.  19 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  20 MR. MACKENZIE:  21 Q   Can you recall swearing any affidavits other than the  22 one which you may have signed at the rec hall in  23 Moricetown?  24 A   Just only when I signed, after that is the one that  25 you are using here now.  26 Q   Now, when you signed that affidavit at the rec hall,  27 was that translated to you?  28 A   Yes.  Rita and Augustine were with me at that time  29 when the -- when I answered some questions there.  30 Q   Have you ever appeared in court?  31 MR. GRANT:  Aside from his discovery you are talking about?  32 MR. MACKENZIE:  33 Q   Yes.  34 A   No.  35 Q   You were examined for discovery on April 22, 1987?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And you did not have a translator at that time?  38 MR. GRANT:  That's admitted.  That's admitted, unless you are  39 asking the witness about memory.  I'll admit there was  40 no translator on April 22, 1987.  I understood  41 somebody was there for a few things, but generally  42 there was no -- in fact, it's recorded there was a  43 translator for a few questions near the end.  44 MR. MACKENZIE:  45 Q   Do you recall appearing in court in Vancouver?  4 6          A   I never went there though.  47 MR. GRANT:  Are you talking about in this case or something R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 else?  JZIE:  Something else.  :  The witness may be thinking you are talking about  evidence in this case.  JZIE:  Yes.  I'm speaking about any other court.  Have you  ever appeared in any other court?  Yeah.  We did go to court in Vancouver in regards to  children, that's all I know.  That's the only time I  went down there.  And you --  It was -- we went to court for children who we since  have retrieved.  And you testified in the family court in Vancouver?  Yes.  And your wife, Augustine Morris, testified in family  court in Vancouver?  Yes, she was also testifying.  And you did not have a translator when you testified?  Yes.  Augustine translated for me in part, because she  had been to school for that translation.  When you testified, your testimony was not through a  translator, was it?  The time when I was testifying, I just answered to the  questions that Gordon had put to me.  So you didn't have a translator, did you?  No.  You answered questions the judge asked you also?  Just the lawyers asked us questions.  You answered questions the other lawyers asked you?  Yes.  And do you speak English at home with your family?  No.  I talk to them in my own language.  Have you written letters in English to the Department  of Indian Affairs?  No.  Have you written any letters in English?  No.  :  There is something I may say here that may assist  you, and I would normally raise it on redirect, but I  don't object to raising it now.  This witness can  neither read nor write anything but his own signature.  I should say he can neither -- he can write his  signature but I am instructed he cannot write nor can  he read.  He has never been to school and had any  formal schooling.  Those are my instructions and if  you asked him that question we would admit that.  2  MR. macke:  3  MR. GRANT  4  5  MR. macke:  6  Q  7  8  A  9  10  11  Q  12  A  13  14  Q  15  A  16  Q  17  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  22  Q  23  24  A  25  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  36  A  37  Q  38  A  39  MR. GRANT  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  Have you ever been to school?  No.  Did you go to school at Forestdale?  I went to school for a short time.  My father took me  out of school after my mother passed away.  How long were you at school?  It was approximately a year.  And do you speak English?  I can speak some English, just like chopping wood.  And why do you want to testify today in the  Wet'suwet'en language?  :  I object to the question.  It's not relevant.  The  Chief Justice has directed that it is a decision  between counsel and each witness, and it's irrelevant  if this witness is the one who wants to testify in  Wet'suwet'en alone, or if it's a decision made jointly  by him and counsel, which is privileged.  I agree you can question on his ability on the  English language but you can't question him as to why.  The Chief Justice has made it clear that in this  country every person is entitled to testify in any  court in the language of their choice, and I instruct  the witness not to answer on that basis.  >JZIE:  Did you ask to testify in Wet'suwet'en when you were  in court in Vancouver?  Are you talking about the time about the court for the  children or in reference to this?  I'm speaking about the family court?  No.  Why did you testify in English in Vancouver?  Only the lawyers asked us questions in regards to the  children and all I had to explain was that I had  raised the children and how I raised the children,  that's what we were questioned on.  Have you appeared in court on any criminal charges?  :  Just a moment.  Are you -- you are asking this in  terms of whether or not he has given evidence -- are  we on the same topic?  I object to the question as  you've worded it because it may lead to evidence  relating to charges which I say are not relevant -- is  not relevant whether he has been charged with  anything.  But if you rephrase the question to focus  on what you are directing it at, I won't object in  that I presume you are asking if he has given evidence  in any other court proceedings other than this family  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  MR. GRANT  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  MR. macke:  26  Q  27  28  A  29  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  35  36  37  Q  38  MR. GRANT  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 11  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 court  matter and his discovery.  MACKENZIE:  Q   Have you given evidence in any criminal courts?  A   Yes, I have, but I can't recall the time and places.  Q   Did you testify in English on those occasions?  A   Yes.  Q   And can you agree that those occasions occurred in  Smithers?  A   Yes.  I was involved at one time in a family court and  I was also a part of a jury.  Q   All right.  You swore an affidavit on July 31, 1986.  Putting that affidavit before you.  GRANT:  This is the interrogatory affidavit -- one of two  interrogatory affidavits, the first in a series that  you are putting to him?  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  Can I just clarify, is this the same affidavit that  was put to him in his commission -- or I mean his  discovery?  MACKENZIE:  I don't think so.  GRANT:  The second of the series was put to him, is that  what you are saying?  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  Okay.  A   Yes, I think this is the one I signed at the rec hall.  MACKENZIE:  I would like to mark that as the first exhibit,  that is the interrogatory affidavit.  GRANT:  With the entire affidavit?  MACKENZIE:  And I'm not — I'm not marking the  interrogatories at this time.  GRANT:  So you are marking the affidavit itself without  Exhibit A; is that what you propose to do?  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Before we do that, I want to reconsider  that and I'll just refrain from marking that right  now.  Thank you.  Now just I'll continue to refer to this  affidavit, which is dated July 31, 1986.  Now, do you  recall that there were interrogatories answers  attached to that affidavit when you signed it?  GRANT:  Well maybe -- maybe if -- the terminology of  "interrogatories", I don't know how that would be  translated, but that there were -- if you would agree  that the interpreter can translate it that there were  questions asked by the provincial defendant and  answers to those questions, both the questions and the  answers were attached to the affidavit.  MACKENZIE:  2  MR  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  MR  14  15  16  MR  17  MR  18  19  20  MR  21  MR  22  23  MR  24  MR  25  26  MR  27  28  MR  29  MR  30  31  MR  32  33  MR  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  MR  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR 12  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 Q   Were  questions and answers relating to the court case  2 attached to your affidavit?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   And was -- were the questions and answers translated  5 to you?  6 A   Yes.  This is the one I was referring to when Rita and  7 Augustine translated for me.  8 Q   Now, you also swore an affidavit on January 11, 1987?  9 MR. GRANT:  Can you inform him of who the lawyer was, because  10 there is a distinction between the two.  11 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, I wonder if I can ask a question and then  12 if he can't remember perhaps we could have the  13 clarification.  14 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  15 THE INTERPRETER:  What was the question again?  16 MR. MACKENZIE:  17 Q   Did you swear another affidavit on January 11, 1987?  18 A   Yes, I remember that one, that was the second time.  19 Q   There was questions and answers relating to the court  20 case attached to that affidavit?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And were those questions and answers translated to you  23 at that time?  24 A   Yes.  There was same people, Rita and them.  25 Q   Would it be fair to say, Mr. Morris, that you speak  26 English but you are not comfortable in that language?  27 A   Yes.  This part of it is hard for me.  28 Q   What is your chief's name?  29 A   I have two names.  Which one are you referring to?  30 Q   What are the two names that you are referring to?  31 A   The first name I held was Nahlii and I gave that name  32 to my niece and then after I took the name Woos.  33 Q   And you now hold the name Woos?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   What is the name of your house?  36 A   Cass yex.  37 Q   What is the English meaning of that name?  38 MR. GRANT:  Do you want to ask the translator?  39 MR. MACKENZIE:  Mr. George?  40 THE INTERPRETER:  It means a grizzly house.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  42 Q   What is the name of your clan?  4 3 A   Gitdumden.  44 Q   What are the names of the chiefs in your house?  45 MR. GRANT:  Besides Woos?  46 MR. MACKENZIE:  47 Q   Besides Woos? 13  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 A   Do you want  all the names of chiefs seated in the  2 hall?  3 Q   No.  I want names of the chiefs in your house.  4 MR. GRANT:  You are referring now to Cass yex rather than  5 Gitdumden?  6 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, that's why I said house.  7 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  8 A   It's one of my brothers who is elder is Gisdaywa.  9 Also Gyolugyet, Gordon Hall, and also Jimmy who just  10 took on a name, Madeek.  11 MR. MACKENZIE:  12 Q   What's his English name?  13 A   Jimmy Brown.  14 Q   Now, are you naming chiefs in the house?  15 A  Are you asking for all those chiefs names or --  16 Q   Can you give me the name of one other chief in your  17 house, the grizzly house?  18 A   I've mentioned already.  They are the only ones I can  19 recall at this time.  20 Q   Is Gisdaywa in your house?  21 A   Gisdaywa comes from a different house but we all come  22 from the same clan.  23 Q   Is Madeek in your house?  24 A   Yes.  It's a different place but from a different  25 house.  26 Q   Is it fair to say you can recall no other chiefs in  27 your house but Gyolugyet?  28 A   The only one I can recall at this time is Gordon Hall.  29 Q   Would it be fair to say there are no other chiefs in  30 your house except for Woos and Gyolugyet?  31 MR. GRANT:  Well, I won't object to it.  Go ahead and ask him.  32 A   Like I said, there is lots of chiefs, we all -- we're  33 all in the same clan, but we -- each one of us belong  34 to different houses.  We all work together.  35 MR. MACKENZIE:  36 Q   So is it fair to say that in Cass yex there are only  37 two chiefs, Woos and Gyolugyet?  38 A   I didn't think you were going to ask me about these  39 people, but these are the only ones I can remember.  40 There is -- there are more.  41 Q   There are more chiefs in the House of Cass yex?  42 A   Now the ones I mentioned before, the names that I gave  43 you belong to Cass yex.  44 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  Mr. Morris may have had more, he was  45 in the midst of saying something while translating.  46 Just ask him to finish his answer.  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  Can I ask for a translation? 14  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. GRANT:  Yes.  Could you just translate what you asked him?  INTERPRETER:  I asked him, "Can you remember more?"  MACKENZIE:  And his answer?  INTERPRETER:  No response.  GRANT:  All I was concerned about is -- I wasn't trying --  reask the question, but I thought that Mr. Morris was  saying something further to the translator as the  translator was translating.  It seems that wasn't the  case.  MACKENZIE:  Q   I just want to get this clear:  You can remember only  two names for chiefs in Cass yex; is that correct?  GRANT:  Well, I'm going to begin to object because I think  you've asked the question about five times.  I'm not  going to object this time but I hope we don't hear it  another four times.  I think it's very clear what his  answer is and he has given it to you three times now.  You can go one more time.  MACKENZIE:  Yes, I'm sorry.  I'm glad we're keeping this so  courteous.  Perhaps I can just say that I still, in my  view, am trying to get an answer to my question but  the witness is not answering my question, in my  submission.  But I'm sure you will be guided by your  judgment and your objections.  GRANT:  Well, with respect, he said, "The only one I can  recall in the House of Cass yex is Gyolugyet."  He  said this in his last answer to you.  Before that he  says to you, "Gyolugyet and Woos," and you say, "Are  there any other -- are they the only two chiefs in the  house,"  and he says, "I do not recall any others."  That's two that I have noted.  There was a previous  question in which he answered you initially that he  couldn't recall other names, so he has given those  answers to you three times.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  But my question is, is it fair to say that  there are no other chiefs.  GRANT:  And you've asked him and he says he cannot recall.  How can he answer your question if he cannot recall  the names?  MACKENZIE:  Well, he can say yes or no.  GRANT:  He -- and he -- yes.  And he can also say, "I do not  recall," and he said to you three times, "I do not  recall," in answer to the very question you are asking  him now.  MACKENZIE:  I'm sorry.  GRANT:  Go ahead one more time and then let's go to  something else.  2  THE  3  MR.  4  THE  5  MR.  6  7  8  9  10  MR.  11  12  13  MR.  14  15  16  17  18  19  MR.  20  21  22  23  24  25  MR.  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  MR.  36  37  MR.  38  39  40  MR.  41  MR.  42  43  44  45  MR.  46  MR.  47 15  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Our recollection of the evidence is different.  In Cass yex are there any chiefs in addition to  Gyolugyet and Woos?  Yes.  There are quite a few of them in the house and  I -- I forgot or can't recall right at this point.  Gordon Hall, myself are the ones that sit back as  chiefs.  And in which house were you born?  I was born down at C'e k'ez, which is in my uncle's  territory, within my uncle's territory, Madeek.  Can I get a spelling for that, please.  :  Which, Madeek?  No, no.  I was born down at --  My mother, who belonged to the House of Spookw.  >JZIE:  So you were born near Broman Lake?  That's what they call it, C'e k'ez.  :  That's the heading of section B of his affidavit.  >JZIE:  And in which house were you a member when you were  born?  Of course I was -- I'm belong to -- I was born to my  mother's so I -- we always follow the mother's side  when we are born.  So you were a member of Spookw?  Yes.  And are you still a member of Spookw's house?  Yes.  Are you a member of Cass yex?  Yes.  All I know is that I also belong there because  of my -- I hold a name of my uncle.  Did you join Cass yex when you took your uncle's name?  Yes.  So is it fair to say that you were a member of two  houses?  Yeah.  We all come from one clan, we don't distinguish  any differences between our clan.  It's just the names  of houses that we belong to.  Are you a member of two houses?  Yes.  I speak for the whole clan.  You speak for Spookw?  Whenever they host a feast, I always speak for them  and I speak for everybody.  Do you speak for the House of Spookw in this lawsuit?  :  Just a moment.  I think the question -- I'm not  objecting to the topic area but I think the question  2  Q  3  4  5  A  6  7  8  9  Q  10  A  11  12  MR.  FREY:  13  MR.  GRANT  14  MR.  FREY:  15  A  16  MR.  macke:  17  Q  18  A  19  MR.  GRANT  20  MR.  macke:  21  Q  22  23  A  24  25  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  33  Q  34  A  35  Q  36  37  A  38  39  40  Q  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  45  Q  46  MR.  GRANT  47 16  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1              as framed  is a question of law.  Perhaps if you reword  2 it you'll get to the same place.  So I only object to  3 the form of the question not to the substance if  4 you'll reframe it.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  6 Q   You said --  7 MR. GRANT:  I mean -- what I'm saying is that I think if you are  8 talking about the representative capacity of the  9 plaintiff as set out in the pleadings, I think that's  10 a question of law on what the pleadings state.  But  11 you may -- I think you can go -- that's why when you  12 say "speak for", I think you should clarify what they  13 are talking about.  It may be something different  14 which you are really after and that I don't object to.  15 MR. MACKENZIE:  16 Q   You say you speak for everyone.  Do you speak for  17 Spookw?  18 A  When we were conducting feasts, I always announce for  19 them.  I don't do it down in Hazelton area but I do it  20 around the Moricetown area.  21 Q   All right.  I don't think you answered this question  22 so I'll ask you again.  Are you a member of two  23 houses?  24 A   Yes, I believe I do belong to both houses, although  25 being seated at the feast, we sit up above and then --  2 6 and then my mother's side sit down from us.  27 Q   If you are a member of the House of Spookw, do you  28 have a claim to Spookw's territories?  29 A   Yes, I have access to where my grandmother's had  30 territory in the east.  We utilized that area.  31 Q   Which territory is that to which you refer?  32 A   It's in Burns Lake, around Burns Lake.  33 Q   And whose territory is that?  34 A   Belongs to Laksilyu.  35 Q   And what clan did your grandmother belong to?  3 6 A   Gitdumden.  37 Q   So do you have access to the Laksilyu territories at  38 Burns Lake?  39 A  We had access to hunting around the area because it  40 was a reserve there and my Aunt Julia, they were  41 involved with the reserve and as a result we had  42 access to hunting and -- around the area.  We didn't  43 own that territory.  44 Q   Are you speaking about the Burns Lake Reserve?  45 A   That was a long time ago when we were kids we were  46 raised up around there.  It's not there anymore.  47 Q   Who had the name Woos before you? 17  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 A   Topley  Matthew Sam.  2 Q   And when did Topley Matthew Sam die?  3 A   I couldn't remember.  It could have been around '81 or  4 '82.  5 Q   And you took the name Woos after he died?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And when did you take the name Woos?  8 A   Somewhere around '84.  9 Q   In your interrogatories you say that you took the name  10 Woos in 1978.  11 MR. GRANT:  What question are you referring to?  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  Number 9.  13 MR. GRANT:  First sentence -- just wait, there is no question.  14 I don't think you asked a question.  15 MR. MACKENZIE:  16 Q   No.  Was your answer in interrogatory number 9 true?  17 A   Yes, this is right, the one that's in the  18 interrogatory.  19 MR. GRANT:  Sorry, I didn't get that answer.  What was the  20 answer?  21 THE INTERPRETER:  This one that's in the interrogatory is right.  22 MR. GRANT:  Referring to the date?  23 THE INTERPRETER:  Yeah.  24 MR. GRANT:  That's right.  25 MR. MACKENZIE:  26 Q   Who held the name Woos before Topley Matthew Sam?  27 A   It was one of our own grandfathers that lived around  28 here, Tyee Lake David.  29 Q   Who held the name Woos before Tyee Lake David?  30 A   I think they were brothers.  One other one held a name  31 before that, I can't remember.  32 Q   Now, Seymour Dennis was supposed to get the name Woos  33 from Topley Matthew Sam; is that correct?  34 A   Yes, he was supposed to get the name, but he wasn't  35 living around here so that's why they gave it to me.  36 Q   Seymour was living in California?  37 A   Yes, he still lives down there yet.  38 Q   Topley Matthew Sam had a trapline where?  39 A   Tse Layil Teezdlii, Morice Lake.  40 MR. GRANT:  Can we go off the record?  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  Sure.  42 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION)  43 MR. MACKENZIE:  44 Q   Topley Matthew Sam had a trapline at Morice Lake,  45 didn't he?  46 A   Yes.  He held territory up there.  47 Q   And do you know where that trapline was on Morice R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1              Lake?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Where was that territory -- where was the trapping  4 territory -- the trapline -- I'll rephrase the  5 question.  Where was the registered trapline related  6 to Morice Lake?  7 A   I knew all the traplines, 28 mile.  It's along McBride  8 Lake.  9 Q   Topley Matthew Sam's registered trapline was around  10 McBride Lake?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And the Topley Matthew Sam registered trapline went  13 over to Morice Lake, did it?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   And Topley Matthew Sam registered trapline crossed  16 Morice Lake to the north side of Morice Lake; is that  17 correct?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   Topley Matthew Sam registered trapline did not cover  20 the southwest end of Morice Lake, did it?  21 A   I think it's on Morice Mountain on the other side.  22 Q   Do you know where Morice Mountain is?  23 A  When you come -- when you come to the lake it's on --  24 it's across the lake on the west side.  25 Q   So that's Nanika Mountain?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   So Topley Matthew Sam's trapline was around McBride  28 Lake and over to Nanika Mountain area; is that  29 correct?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Did you ever trap on that trapline?  32 MR. GRANT:  Are you talking about the registered trapline?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  34 Q   Yes, I'm sorry.  Did you ever trap on that registered  35 trapline?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   Matthew Sam, Topley Matthew Sam was enfranchised, was  38 he not?  39 MR. GRANT:  I'll let you answer the question but reserve the  40 right to object to it on the basis of relevance.  41 A   I don't know anything about that.  42 MR. MACKENZIE:  43 Q   Topley Matthew Sam had a Crown grant of land, didn't  44 he.  45 A   He never told me about it.  I don't know, he never  46 told me about it.  I just assumed that the place where  47 he was living was a reserve. 19  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1          Q   Topley  Matthew Sam had a farm there, was it near  2 Topley?  3 A   Yes, they lived in that area.  His children and  4 grandchildren still live there, his daughter still  5 lives there.  6 Q   So did Topley Matthew Sam tell you that he owned the  7 land on which his farm was located?  8 A  All I knew is that they were living there.  9 Q   Okay.  Well, when Topley Matthew Sam died, who took  10 over Topley Matthew Sam registered trapline?  11 A   I'm entitled to a trapline, but according to the white  12 man's law, we are not allowed to hold two traplines.  13 Q   Who took over Topley Matthew Sam registered trapline?  14 A   Gyolugyet, who is Gordon Hall, is registered on that  15 trapline.  Also has his grandchildren as company on  16 there.  17 Q   And Seymour Dennis wanted to be registered on that  18 line too, didn't he?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And he was Matthew Sam's nephew, wasn't he?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Yes.  We are talking about Topley Matthew Sam,  23 correct?  24 A   Topley Matthew Sam, yes.  25 Q   And do you know that Mr. Cox would not permit him to  26 be added because he lived in California, Seymour  27 Dennis?  28 A   Yes.  2 9 Q   Do you know that Seymour Dennis was upset when you  30 took the name Woos?  31 A   Time when I was given the name, Seymour Dennis didn't  32 know about it.  33 Q   When -- did Seymour Dennis ever express to you his  34 concern about your holding the name Woos?  35 MR. GRANT:  After he — after the witness took the name Woos?  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  37 Q   Yes.  38 A   No.  He didn't say anything to me about it.  39 Q   Now, the only territory that Topley Matthew Sam  40 trapped on was his registered trapline at Morice Lake;  41 is that correct?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And are you aware that Matthew Sam had arguments with  44 the surrounding trapline owners as to the boundaries  45 of the Morice Lake trapline?  46 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  I think that you should only ask  47 that question if you give him some examples of who 20  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 those  people were that you are referring to, because  2 there is no evidence that this witness knows who the  3 surrounding trapline holders are.  There has been no  4 indication in this evidence as to that.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  6 Q Are you aware of any disputes over trapline boundaries  7 between Matthew Sam and other Indian trappers?  8 A No, I don't know anything about that.  9 Q Do you know anything about Matthew Sam's dispute with  10 Antoine Jim over the trapline boundaries?  11 A One of our relatives or uncle, I heard him say  12 something about it and he was around that area, but he  13 hasn't been up there for a long time, Frank Jimmy.  14 Q Do you remember a dispute between Matthew Sam and  15 Thomas George about traplines near Pimpernel Lake?  16 A No.  17 Q Now, Gordon Hall hasn't been out to trap on the Morice  18 Lake registered trapline, has he?  19 A He used to trap out there, but since he's getting old  20 he hasn't been able to travel out there lately.  21 Q When was the last time he was out there on the  22 trapline?  23 A I think it may be around '85.  I remember he had a  24 stroke, he hasn't been out there since.  25 Q Okay.  So you were born near Broman Lake and you were  26 a member of the Omenica Band at that time, were you?  27 A Yes.  2 8 Q And then later you moved to Moricetown?  29 A Yes.  30 Q And that was in 1957?  31 A Yes.  32 Q And you transferred to the Moricetown Band?  33 A Yes.  34 Q Your father was Steven Morris?  35 A Yes.  36 Q And who -- did you have any brothers?  37 A Yes.  One brother, Eddie.  38 Q And your father's brother was Keom Morris?  39 A Yes.  40 Q Keom and Steven had a trapline near Ootsa Lake?  41 A Yes.  42 Q That was a registered trapline?  43 A Yes.  44 Q And that was —  45 A They were in company.  46 Q Beg your pardon?  47 A They were in company. 21  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Submission by Mr. Grant 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  It's  12:30 now.  We'll take a break now  2 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH)  3 MR. GRANT:  Before you commence, I note that your cross-  4 examination is now reconvened at 1:46 and we just had  5 some discussions about some matters.  I would just  6 like to clarify two things:  7 I may have stated my concern about the use of the  8 discovery in a misleading way this morning.  I only  9 wanted to be clear that I did not view this process  10 here as an examination for discovery which you've had  11 full opportunity to have with this witness, and I  12 don't -- of course, I do not object to your  13 utilization of the discovery transcript as you would  14 any -- would be entitled to any discovery transcript  15 at trial.  That will be that maybe you -- I do not see  16 myself, the necessity for you to read in questions  17 which you just wish read in, as you'll have the  18 opportunity to do that ultimately.  But I think that  19 you can -- in any event, I don't think there is any  20 need for you to get a ruling on that point until at  21 least you have formulated and asked those questions,  22 because I think ultimately we will probably not be in  23 disagreement.  That's the first thing.  24 The second thing is that I contacted my office at  25 noon hour and apparently 5:09 on Saturday night, this  26 letter was delivered by fax to my office which you've  27 referred to this morning, although you did not provide  28 me with a copy of it this morning.  And in this fax,  29 you request that Mr. Morris read answer questions  30 regarding to 11 areas.  Five of them are  31 interrogatories as well as his which you already  32 advised me of, there was Smogelgem, Hagwilnegh, Madeek  33 and Kloum Khun interrogatories.  The interrogatories,  34 of course, are several pages long and deal with a  35 hundred and ten questions.  You also raise Leonard  36 George, Alfred Joseph, and Marvin George interviews  37 with Roy Morris.  You also suggested that he look at  38 his examination for discovery, something which is --  39 probably was obvious in any event.  But you also talk  40 about the cross-examination of Alfred Joseph in  41 volumes 33 and 35 in the trial transcripts, the  42 cross-examination of Sarah Layton in transcript volume  43 66, the transcript of the Moricetown all clans feast  44 of April 6th, 1986 which is trial Exhibit 82, and  45 which, by the way, he was fully examined on in  46 discovery, not to say you can't reask questions, but  47 that was canvassed at that time. 22  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Mr. Mackenzie  1 All of those documents which I would not have  2 had -- literally would not have had the time to read  3 myself between 5:09 Saturday night December 3rd, and  4 this morning when we were scheduled to commence at  5 9:30.  Our documents which at least were in my  6 possession, obviously, you would have known long  7 before this that these documents were ones that you  8 would be referring to or relying on or at least most  9 of them would be.  But then you also add a document  10 which, in my view, is (a) irrelevant, (b) I have not  11 had an opportunity to see it, (c) it's not in my  12 possession and I never even knew about it until now,  13 and that is Mr. Morris' testimony at the hearing in  14 the matter of the Family Relations Act and Roy  15 Morrison and Augustine Morris dated November 27th,  16 1987.  A document to which you referred, obviously, in  17 your cross-examination of this witness this morning.  18 If this  -- if this letter is your effort to  19 comply with the wishes of the Chief Justice, I think  20 it is insulting, and I think that you could have had  21 the courtesy to phone me on Saturday and advise me.  I  22 think you could have had the added courtesy of  23 advising me of this on Friday by leaving a message at  24 my office to inform me that you were going to be doing  25 this, and I think you could have also had the courtesy  26 of providing me with a copy of this testimony of Mr.  27 Morris.  How can you expect me to prepare a witness  28 for cross?  And now I get it at 2:00 p.m. from my  29 office, I get it at 2:00 p.m. when he is already in  30 the middle of cross-examination.  And if that's what  31 you think is a fair way of dealing with disclosure in  32 this case, I think that it's pretty insulting.  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  Okay.  So the tone of this cross-examination has  34 now deteriorated into your usual way of conducting  35 these discoveries.  36 MR. GRANT:  Mr. Mackenzie —  37 MR. MACKENZIE:  No, Mr. Grant, I'm going to respond to your  3 8 comments.  39 MR. GRANT:  Don't, don't —  40 MR. MACKENZIE:  Please —  41 MR. GRANT:  I'm not being insulting.  This is what's insulting.  42 MR. MACKENZIE:  You are being insulting and you are being  43 discourteous.  44 MR. GRANT:  I'm very courteous with you, Mr. Mackenzie.  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  I took the trouble to send that information to  46 you.  It's clear that you should have known that, if  47 you were proper counsel advising your client, you 23  1  2  3  4  5  MR  6  7  MR  8  9  MR  10  11  12  MR  13  14  MR  15  MR  16  MR  17  18  MR  19  20  21  22  MR  23  MR  24  MR  25  26  27  28  MR  29  30  MR  31  32  33  34  35  MR  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  MR  44  45  46  47  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Mr. Mackenzie  would have known about all those things to start with.  All those items that are listed were either produced  by your clients or which your client was aware and  should have advised you.  GRANT:  What is the relevance of the Family Relations Act  hearing?  MACKENZIE:  I take exception to your comments and the way  that you phrased them today, to use your terminology.  GRANT:  What is the relevance of the Family Relations Act  hearing?  And do you have a copy of the transcript for  me?  MACKENZIE:  You saw the relevance.  You can get one from  your client if you want one.  GRANT:  My client doesn't have that transcript.  Do you?  MACKENZIE:  Yes, I do.  GRANT:  I would like you to produce a copy of it before I go  into redirect, please.  MACKENZIE:  The fact that I went in and worked all day  Saturday to accommodate your interests seems to have  escaped your purview completely, and then you call the  letter --  GRANT:  You worked all day Saturday --  MACKENZIE:  — and then you call that letter insulting.  GRANT:  You worked all day Saturday to accommodate my  interests?  Come on, Mr. Mackenzie, let's be serious.  My phone number is listed, both my office and home  number.  MACKENZIE:  You know the experience we've had in this case  in trying to telephone you, Mr. Grant.  GRANT:  No, I don't, Mr. Mackenzie.  You've been able to  reach me any time you want.  I request a copy of the  transcript at the end of today and I'll be ready to  deal with redirect and we won't have any further  delays, that is, of the Family Relations Act hearing.  MACKENZIE:  Yes, I hope we don't have any further delays,  Mr. Grant.  I would like to record that we didn't  start this examination because of you and your client  until quarter to eleven this morning, and also we are  15 minutes late this afternoon as a result.  Now I  wasn't going to raise those matters, but you have  raised them by bringing up that subject in such a  discourteous manner.  GRANT:  Mr. Mackenzie, I'm being courteous to you and I  would refrain from saying -- using language you are  using because the record -- I cannot let the record  stand with that kind of language from you. I agree  that there was a delay this morning, I encouraged us 24  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 to take only  a one-hour lunch, my client obviously  2 misunderstood or was a few minutes late, and we are  3 ready to proceed at 1:45.  4 MR. MACKENZIE:  Just so it's clear on the record, I, of course,  5 object to Mr. Grant's comments in respect to that  6 letter, and I can't agree, of course, with anything he  7 said, but I think that was clear from my immediate  8 response to his comments.  9 MR. GRANT:  Well, I can't see how it was physically possible for  10 me to have read all of these materials between 5:09  11 Saturday night and this morning, except if I didn't  12 sleep, which I thought was probably a healthy thing to  13 do.  14 MR. MACKENZIE:  15 Q   Now, Mr. Morris, you told us this morning that Steven  16 Morris and Keom Morris had a registered trapline near  17 Ootsa Lake; is that correct?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   And you know that Steven Morris transferred that  20 trapline to Eddie Morris, your brother?  21 MR. GRANT:  This is the registered trapline?  22 MR. MACKENZIE:  23 Q   Yes.  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And you are aware that Eddie -- your brother sold that  26 registered trapline to a white man?  27 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  You are referring to events that  28 occurred after October 1984 in that question?  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  I don't know.  Perhaps Mr. Morris can tell me.  30 MR. GRANT:  From the material provided me with a notice to  31 admit, it appears you are.  I object to the question  32 and instruct the witness not to answer, based on the  33 rulings of the Chief Justice as to what is relevant in  34 this case.  And I so say that because the information  35 you provided to me indicates that it was in September,  36 October of 1987 that any such events which you allege,  37 if they did occur, would have occurred.  If, on the  38 other hand, you are referring to something that  39 occurred before 1984, then I would withdraw my  40 objection.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  42 Q   Do you recall when Steven transferred the trapline to  43 Eddie Morris?  44 A   Quite awhile ago.  I can't remember.  45 Q   And do you recall that Eddie rented the trapline out  46 to other trappers?  47 THE INTERPRETER:  What was that question? 25  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. GRANT:  I  couldn't hear your question and either could the  2 translator.  3 MR. MACKENZIE:  4 Q   Do you recall Eddie rented the trapline to other  5 trappers?  6 A   He never talked to me about it at all.  7 Q   Well, Eddie never trapped on that registered trapline  8 after he took it over from Steven, did he?  9 A   It's all under water.  There was just a little  10 mountain called Alalaghel is all there is there.  11 Q   We were speaking about Steven and Keom.  Where did you  12 trap when you were growing up, if you trapped?  13 A   Time when I was growing up where I trapped, the area  14 where my father and them trapped, I used to go there  15 and it was all flooded, and I haven't gone there since  16 1948.  17 Q   Could you tell us where you've lived in the past?  You  18 were born at Broman Lake and how long did you live  19 there?  2 0 A   Yeah.  The time when I was growing up where my parents  21 raised us, we used to travel back and forth.  There  22 was real nice country and at that time -- and we used  23 to travel back and forth between the -- in the  24 territories, and that was the time when my mother was  25 still alive.  26 Q   Which territories did you travel to in those days?  27 A  We used to travel all along from Alalaghel to -- all  28 the areas we travelled, it has been flooded out and  29 it's under water now.  30 Q   So were you travelling down with your father, Steven  31 Morris registered trapline area?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   Now, after you trapped on Steven Morris registered  34 trapline did you trap on any other registered  35 traplines?  36 A   The time when -- 1949, we moved to Taa tl'aat and  37 that's where we stayed.  38 Q   And at that time, did you live with Nora Lee Matthew  39 Sam?  4 0 A   Yes.  At the time when my father was employed in a  41 mine, they were the ones that raised us there.  42 Q   So Nora Lee Matthew Sam and his wife raised you in Taa  43 tl'aat?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   You were born in 1936?  46 A   Yes.  That's when I was born at C'e K'ez.  47 Q   Yes.  And did you trap on Matthew -- sorry, Nora Lee 26  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 Matthew  Sam's registered trapline?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And Nora Lee Matthew Sam's trapline was in the area  4 west of Francois Lake, wasn't it?  5 THE INTERPRETER:  Did you say west?  6 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, west.  7 THE INTERPRETER:  West of?  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  9 Q   Francois Lake.  10 A   Yes.  11 MR. GRANT:  I think you said "their trapline territory".  I  12 presume you are talking about registered trapline in  13 that example too?  14 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  And what house was Matthew Sam — Nora Lee  15 Matthew Sam?  Off the record, please.  16 MR. GRANT:  I think you were in the middle of a question without  17 an answer.  18 A   I'm just thinking it over.  19 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  Maybe we can go off the record while you are  20 thinking it over.  Do you wish to go off the record?  21 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  22 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION)  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  24 Q   Okay.  The question was what house did Matthew Sam  25 belong to and Nora Lee Matthew Sam?  26 THE INTERPRETER:  He's just thinking out loud here.  27 A   Yeah, he was in the wolf clan.  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  29 Q   So you don't recall which house he was in?  30 A   I was informed but I forgot all about it.  31 Q   And do you know what Nora Lee Matthew Sam's father's  32 name was?  33 A   The only -- I only heard my late grandfather mention  34 him as Old Sam.  35 Q   So you don't know which clan Old Sam was in?  36 MR. GRANT:  Just a second.  You had just asked who, before that,  37 Nora Lee Matthew Sam's father was?  38 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  39 MR. GRANT:  And the answer to that was Old Sam?  40 MR. MACKENZIE:  41 Q   Yes.  42 A   Laksilyu.  43 Q   And Nora Lee Matthew Sam's territory was owned by  44 which clan?  45 MR. GRANT:  His registered trapline or —  46 MR. MACKENZIE:  47 Q   Nora Lee Matthew Sam's registered trapline territory 27  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 was owned  by which clan?  2 A   Gilseyhu.  3 Q   And Nora Lee Matthew Sam's registered trapline was in  4 territory owned by which house?  5 A   Knedebeas.  6 Q   Now, do you remember having an interview with Leonard  7 George on May 28th, 1982?  8 MR. GRANT:  Before -- I'm not objecting to the question.  Before  9 he answered I want it to be known on the record that  10 this -- these interviews were not reviewed by me with  11 this witness in preparation for his cross-examination.  12 And I'm only saying that because he may or may not  13 remember the interview or any of the contents of it.  14 But this certainly was, for the reasons I've set out  15 in terms of the letter, these interviews were not --  16 this interview was not reviewed with the witness.  I'm  17 not objecting to your question.  18 MR. MACKENZIE:  19 Q   Do you recall having an interview with Leonard George  20 on May 28, 1982?  21 A  Was it regarding to this territory?  22 Q   Yes.  23 A   There was a lot of people talk to me about territories  24 and I just can't remember which one.  25 Q   Okay.  You told Leonard George that Nora Lee Matthew  2 6 Sam trapline was in Gitdumden country, didn't you?  27 MR. GRANT:  Can I see?  Do you have a copy?  Well that — I'm  28 only referring to the few questions and answers before  29 the end of the interview transcript which you handed  30 to me.  The witness was asked, according to this  31 interview note, about who had it before Matthew Sam  32 had it, and then he asks what relation was he and then  33 he describes the relationship, and then he asks what  34 tribe was Matthew and he says Gitdumden.  Then the  35 question is almost in the nature of a cross-  36 examination: "So that is Gitdumden country?"  I  37 presume that's the answer you are referring to?  38 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  39 MR. GRANT:  But it's connected to Matthew Sam, it being Matthew  40 Sam.  I think that in fairness that those three  41 questions should be put to the witness.  42 MR. MACKENZIE:  43 Q   You told Leonard George that Nora Lee Matthew Sam's  44 registered trapline was in Gitdumden country, didn't  45 you?  46 A   I was referring to when my grandfather held -- he held  47 a territory or taking care of it and that's what I was R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 talking  about, and when in fact it belongs to  2 Gilseyhu.  3 Q   You told Leonard George that that country had been --  4 had also belonged to Gitdumden from way back, didn't  5 you?  6 A  At that time a lot of people were talking to me and --  7 about the territories, but what I'm saying now it's  8 Gilseyhu territory is the correct answer.  9 Q   But you told Leonard George in 1982 that it was  10 Gitdumden from way back from a long time ago, didn't  11 you?  12 A   I had already told you what I said before and I  13 already told you the answer to that.  14 Q   Okay.  You told Leonard George that that territory had  15 been Gitdumden from way back, didn't you?  16 MR. GRANT:  Well, just a moment.  You've asked him that question  17 three times and the witness says he does not recall  18 the interview with the witness -- with Mr. George.  He  19 indicated to you he has talked to a lot of people, he  20 can't even remember the -- this particular interview,  21 and obviously he can't recall what he said because he  22 can't recall the interview.  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  24 MR. GRANT:  Well, I think that it is — if the witness can't  25 recall the actual interview, or the fact that there  26 was an interview with the witness, I believe you have  27 your answer.  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  So —  29 MR. GRANT:  So how many more times are you going to ask the same  30 question?  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  Till I get the answer, yes or no.  32 MR. GRANT:  Well, if the witness can't recall he can't give you  33 a yes or no answer and you may have to live with that  34 fact.  I don't object to the fact that you ask the  35 same question more than once but I think that asking  36 it never stop -- just continuing and continuing to ask  37 it is a fruitless task and something that's just going  38 to extend this cross-examination indefinitely.  39 MR. MACKENZIE:  Okay, fine.  Let me clarify that then.  But  40 before I do that, I take it are you objecting to that  41 question, me asking that question again?  42 MR. GRANT:  If you want to ask it one more time then I'm not  43 going to object.  If you want to ask it seven more  44 times, I'm going to object.  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  46 Q   Let me clarify it then.  You don't recall speaking to  47 Leonard George about the Nora Lee Matthew Sam in 1982?  29  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 territory  2 A  Would you ask that question again.  3 Q   You don't recall speaking to Leonard George about the  4 Nora Lee Matthew Sam registered trapline territory in  5 1982?  6 A   It's been quite awhile and I just can't remember it  7 all.  8 Q   In 1982, did you think that the Nora Lee Matthew Sam  9 registered trapline territory had been Gitdumden from  10 way long back?  11 THE INTERPRETER:  Can you —  12 MR. GRANT:  Mr. Holland might not —  13 THE INTERPRETER:  I'm confused here.  14 MR. MACKENZIE:  15 Q   In 1982, you thought that Nora Lee Matthew Sam  16 registered trapline territory had been Gitdumden  17 territory from a long way back?  18 A   I may have thought that at that time, I just couldn't  19 recall.  20 Q   And 1982, you knew that Old Sam had had the registered  21 trapline before Nora Lee Matthew Sam?  22 A   Yes.  23 MR. GRANT:  Excuse me, do you have a sketch map of that  24 trapline?  Like I know you use overlays, I just  25 wondered if you have one that's unmarked if I could  26 just have a look at it?  This is the Nora Lee Matthew  27 Sam?  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  29 Q   Okay.  You now know that is Knedebeas' territory,  30 don't you?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Now, when Nora Lee Matthew Sam died, he left a will,  33 didn't he?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   And he willed the trapline, his registered trapline to  36 you, didn't he?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And he also wanted you to take over his home at Taa  39 tl'aat and his household effects?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And so you did take over the registered trapline,  42 didn't you?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And that was in 1974, correct?  45 A   1973.  4 6 Q   And do you know that Sophie Ogen -- or you know who  47 Sophie Ogen is, don't you? 30  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And she was the chief counsellor of the Broman Lake  3 Band then, wasn't she?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   She is in your clan, isn't she?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And you know that she allocated the Taa tl'aat house  8 to another member of the Omenica Band, didn't she?  9 A   No.  It's Eddie who is a member of that Omenica Band  10 at that time, that is who they allocated the place to.  11 Q   That's Eddie Morris, your brother?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And then they signed the terr -- the house at Taa  14 tl'aat over to someone else too, didn't they, after --  15 sorry, rephrase the question.  16 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  I would ask you to specify who you are  17 referring to.  18 MR. MACKENZIE:  19 Q   Sophie Ogen and the Omenica Band allocated the Taa  20 tl'aat property to someone else after Eddie had it,  21 didn't they?  22 MR. GRANT:  And is this pre- or post-1984 that you are —  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  Pre-1984.  24 MR. GRANT:  Okay, go ahead.  25 A   No.  Eddie still has that, was still utilizing that  26 place.  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  28 Q   The Omenica Band -- you told Leonard George that the  29 Omenica Band signed that land at Taa tl'aat over to  30 someone else.  Eddie didn't know about it.  31 MR. GRANT:  Is this the — just a second.  Is this the May '82  32 interview?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  34 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  35 MR. MACKENZIE:  36 Q   Do you need that question again?  37 A   1982?  38 Q   No.  In 1982 he told Leonard George that they had  39 signed it away from Eddie?  40 A   Yes.  At that time I had the papers of that will, and  41 a man said that I belong to another band and so they  42 put Eddie's name on who was still on that band, and  43 Eddie still has that -- has that place and we all use  44 the place together.  45 Q   Okay.  And then you hired a lawyer in 1974 to try and  46 have the Taa tl'aat property assigned to you, didn't  47 you? 31  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 A   Yes.  At  that time, through papers and documents I  2 was -- that was quite awhile ago, they tried to have  3 us vacate the place.  But so as a result of the will,  4 they didn't pursue that any further.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  I would like to mark that Roy Morris interview  6 with Leonard George as an exhibit for identification.  7 MR. GRANT:  And that's not the entire transcript?  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  9 MR. GRANT:  How many pages is it?  10 MR. MACKENZIE:  Six pages.  11 MR. GRANT:  And you are only marking it for identification?  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  I understand that — well, I've got my  13 notes in there.  My -- I would tender it as a normal  14 exhibit but I understand that we have been marking  15 these interviews as for identification.  16 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  Based on what we dealt with last week, no  17 objection.  Let's mark that as an exhibit for  18 identification.  19  20 (EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION - Roy Morris Interview  21 with Leonard George dd. May 28, 1982)  22  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  24 Q   So did you continue to trap on the Nora Lee Matthew  25 Sam trapline -- registered trapline after you took it  26 over?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And you are aware that Catherine Michell objected to  29 you trapping in that territory?  30 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  You are talking about pre-1984  31 events?  32 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  33 MR. GRANT:  1974?  34 MR. MACKENZIE:  35 Q   Yes.  You are aware that Catherine Michell objected to  36 you trapping on that Nora Lee Matthew Sam registered  37 trapline territory?  38 A   They never talked to me about anything like that.  39 Q   And were you aware that Catherine Michell claimed that  40 that was Gilseyhu territory?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And were you aware that Catherine Michell requested  43 that the trapline be given to the House of Knedebeas,  44 Nora Lee Matthew Sam registered trapline?  4 5 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  46 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  47 MR. GRANT:  Well I think if your question is based on the 32  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 documents  which I understand they are based on, the  2 more correct -- the more correct question would be  3 that Catherine Michell requested that the trapline be  4 given to Christine Holland.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  6 MR. GRANT:  I'm just saying that's the fact that was said, I'm  7 not saying -- that may be the same in substance as  8 what you are saying, but --  9 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  10 MR. GRANT:  But I think that if you are questioning him about  11 something like that, you should be precise as to what  12 was asked from him.  13 MR. MACKENZIE:  14 Q   And you know that Christine Holland wanted to take  15 that registered trapline?  16 A   No, I didn't know about that.  17 Q   But you insisted on keeping the registered trapline  18 because Matthew Sam -- Nora Lee Matthew Sam gave it to  19 you in his will, didn't he?  20 A   Because of the letter that was given to me, that is  21 why I went out there.  22 Q   And which letter are you referring to?  23 A   It's a will.  24 Q   And Nora Lee Matthew Sam gave you the registered  25 trapline in his will, didn't he?  26 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  Again, I think that's not what the  27 will says.  I think what the will says is that the  28 property was transferred, it does not specify in the  29 will the registered trapline.  This is the document  30 that I understand -- if the document that you are  31 referring to is the one that I understand, and it's  32 appended to it, it states:  33  34 "I give, devise, and bequeath all my property  35 of every nature and kind and whatsoever  36 situated including any property over which I  37 have a general power of appointment, to my  38 grandson, Roy Bernard Morris, for his own use  39 absolutely."  40  41 That's what it says.  It does not state specifically  42 with respect to the will.  I believe in the notice to  43 admit, that's document 30-D --  44 MR. MACKENZIE:  45 Q   You relied on the will as the basis for your ownership  46 of the registered trapline, didn't you?  47 A   Yes. 33  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 Q   Let's mark  the will then. I'm just going to put it to  2 you.  That copy of the -- is that a copy of Nora Lee  3 Matthew Sam's will?  4 A   Yes.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Could we mark that as Exhibit 2, please.  6 MR. GRANT:  Before -- just a moment.  It can be marked, of  7 course, for the limited purpose that he has identified  8 it as the Nora Lee Matthew Sam will.  9 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  Is there something that you wanted to  10 elaborate on that?  11 MR. GRANT:  No.  I just wanted to be clear as to the purpose for  12 which it is marked.  13  14 (EXHIBIT 2 - Copy of the Nora Lee Matthew Sam Will)  15  16 MR. MACKENZIE:  17 Q   And how long did you continue to trap on that Nora Lee  18 Matthew Sam registered trapline after you took it  19 over?  20 A  We are still using it.  21 Q   Do you still own the Nora Lee Matthew Sam trapline,  22 registered trapline?  23 A   Yes.  24 MR. GRANT:  I just want to be — I want to be sure, Mr.  25 Interpreter, that is what -- my understanding of that  26 last answer was that he said he still uses this  27 trapline, and then your question to him was does he  28 still own that trapline.  Just as long as the  29 interpreter translated that distinction, so maybe you  30 could reask your question.  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  32 Q   You said you still use the Nora Lee Matthew Sam  33 registered trapline.  Do you still own the Nora Lee  34 Matthew Sam registered trapline?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Do you own any other traplines?  37 A   No.  38 Q   Have you owned any other traplines before?  39 A   No.  40 Q   Is it true that you have -- you own -- you have only  41 in your life owned one registered trapline and that is  42 Nora Lee Matthew Sam?  43 A   Yes, I was the only one.  44 Q   Now, did you sell the Nora Lee Matthew Sam trapline to  45 John Mould?  46 MR. GRANT:  I object to that question.  Object to that on the  47 basis that it's based on the material provided by the 34  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 provincial  defendant.  Any such events, if they  occurred, occurred after October 22nd, 1984.  MACKENZIE: Okay. But I'm asking the question for purpose  of credibility because the witness has said he still  owns the trapline.  GRANT:  I note the time, it's five to three.  I would like  to think about that over the break, which I presume  we'll take at three, and I may withdraw my objection.  And I'll consider that if you'll go on to something  else.  MACKENZIE:  Q   Now, you told the judge in Vancouver that you owned  two traplines.  Do you recall saying that?  GRANT: Is this in the November 27th, '87 Family Relations  Act matter?  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  Can you give me a reference for it before he answers  the question?  MACKENZIE:  It's page 85 line 9 to 13.  GRANT:  Well, I think that if you are going to ask him this,  that you should do it as you would with a discovery,  and you should put the question and the answer as it  is to him and rather than summarizing it.  And if you  do that I don't object to you asking him the question,  notwithstanding that I don't believe this transcript  is listed and I haven't had a chance to read it all  now and you just provided it to me just a few moments  ago, but I think you should put to him the question  and the answer and then ask him if it's true.  MACKENZIE: Okay. You've told us that — you testified in  the court, in the family court in Vancouver; is that  correct.  INTERPRETER:  What was that question again?  MACKENZIE:  Q   You testified in family court in Vancouver?  A   Yes.  Q   And you testified under oath on November 27, 1987, in  that family court?  MACKENZIE:  November 27.  INTERPRETER:  November.  A   Yes.  MACKENZIE:  Q   I'm going to read a question and answer to you with  Mr. Holland's assistance.  Question --  GRANT:  Line six?  MACKENZIE:  Line six.  Well, start up at line two:  2  3  MR.  4  5  6  MR.  7  8  9  10  11  MR.  12  13  14  MR.  15  16  MR.  17  MR.  18  19  MR.  20  MR.  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  MR.  31  32  33  THE  34  MR.  35  36  37  38  39  MR.  40  THE  41  42  MR.  43  44  45  MR.  46  MR.  47 35  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1                        Q  "And what's your chief name?  2 A Woos."  3  4 MR. GRANT:  You can go through it all and he can read it.  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  6 Q   Okay.  7  8 Q  "Chief Woos?  9 A  Yes.  10 Q  That's W-o-o-s.  And in this house do you  11 have a tract of land, do you have any  12 land that's -- that you're entitled to go  13 to?  14 A  Yes, we have -- when we get the name  15 the -- they have everything and we get  16 the trapline at -- I should say,  17 territory with it, with the name and  18 which I have is -- I have two traplines,  19 my Uncle's and then -- then -- two late  20 uncles."  21  22 Now, please translate those questions and answers.  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Were you asked those questions?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And did you give those answers?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And were those answers true?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   Now, did you also own another trapline formally held  31 by Alec Michell?  32 A   No.  It wasn't registered to me but I did go trapping  33 with him.  34 Q   Yes.  And the Department of Indian Affairs bought that  35 registered trapline for you in 1958, didn't they?  36 A   No, I don't know nothing about that.  37 Q   And you made a down payment of $51 on the purchase  38 price of that trapline in 1958, didn't you?  39 A   I never been out there since 1952.  After '52 when Dan  40 Michell passed away, I never went out there at all.  I  41 think Broman Lake Band was the one that purchased that  42 territory and I believe Jimmy Skin was the one that  43 went out there.  44 Q   But the Department of Indian Affairs bought Alec  45 Michell's registered trapline from Martha Alec for  46 you, didn't they.  4 7    MR. FREY:  When? 36  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  2 Q   In 1958.  3 A   I don't know nothing about that.  4 Q   And you paid $51 as down payment for that trapline,  5 didn't you?  6 A   I moved down from there in 1957 and I don't remember  7 anything about it.  As a matter of fact, I -- after my  8 uncle passed away, I never went out on that territory  9 again.  10 Q   What was your Indian band number when you were a  11 member of the Francois Lake Band?  12 A   I don't know.  13 Q   Do you not remember your Indian band number?  14 A   I just know the one in Moricetown.  15 Q   And did you receive any letters from the Department of  16 Indian Affairs asking you to make the payments for the  17 purchase price of the trapline?  18 A   No.  19 Q   Did you go to Burns Lake in 1962 and ask for a return  20 of the -- your down payment of $51?  21 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment before the witness answers.  I just  22 wanted to check it.  Go ahead.  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  Do you want the question again?  24 THE INTERPRETER:  Yes.  25 MR. MACKENZIE:  26 Q   And you went to Burns Lake in 1962 to get a repayment  27 of your down payment, didn't you, a refund?  28 A   I don't recall altogether.  29 Q   Okay.  First putting to you a document dated  30 October -- copy of a document dated October 15, 1958.  31 Would you identify your signature on that, please?  32 MR. GRANT:  Is this on — what list is that?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  It's Canada list, document 11-180.  34 MR. GRANT:  That's — this is part of a file, I presume?  35 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  36 MR. GRANT:  I note that it's ten after three.  I wonder if  37 rather than having us wait while the interpreter reads  38 this to the witness as to what this document is and  39 ask him to identify it one way or the other, that we  40 take a break and he can read that.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  I would just like him to identify his signature  42 and then he can examine the document over the break if  43 you have no objection to that.  44 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  Maybe you should — so what you are asking  45 is -- your question is, is that your signature on the  46 bottom of that document?  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes. 37  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 A   Looks like  my writing but I forget.  It's been quite  2 awhile.  3 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'll mark it as an exhibit on that basis.  4 MR. GRANT:  Well, if —  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  Exhibit 3.  6 MR. GRANT:  For identification.  7 MR. MACKENZIE:  Okay, I won't argue with you.  8 MR. GRANT:  Because I'm not sure he has identified it.  Mark it  9 as for identification as the document you put to him.  10  11 (EXHIBIT 3 - Letter dd. October 15, 1958, signed by  12 Mr. Roy Morris)  13  14 (BRIEF ADJOURNMENT TAKEN)  15 MR. MACKENZIE:  16 Q   Now, can you say whether that signature on Exhibit 3  17 is your signature or not, now that you've had a chance  18 to read it?  19 A   Yes.  20 MR. MACKENZIE:  So I guess you'll agree that that's an exhibit?  21 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  Just a few points I want to raise.  One is  22 that I had -- I want to take some time to think about  23 the objection I made regarding the question about the  24 trapline regarding John or Ron Mould, and I'm going to  25 withdraw my objection on that, on the basis that it  26 appears to me you are entitled to question on that  27 because of the credibility question that you are  28 raising.  I reserve the right to object to  29 transactions of that nature that occur after October  30 22, 1984, in light of the Chief Justice's indications  31 or directions to counsel, but I think that is a  32 different reason.  33 The other point is that you may wish to -- the  34 witness himself came to me at the break and said he  35 did recall something about -- this was before this  36 document, Exhibit 3, was put to him, or outside of the  37 court, but he said, "I do remember something about a  38 down payment."  I told him not to discuss it with me  39 but it seems fair that -- I certainly would do it on  40 redirect -- he does recall something about these  41 questions you raised before the break and he started  42 to talk to me about that immediately after we left,  43 and I told him not to talk to me, but I want to raise  44 for the record that he did say something about that.  45 You may want to ask him about it.  And that was before  46 Exhibit 3 was put to him as well, while I was waiting  47 for you to do the photocopy. R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  Exhibit 3 was put to him before the break.  You  2 are saying before it was explained to him, is that  3 what you are saying?  4 MR. GRANT:  The document, Exhibit 3, was put to him before the  5 break solely for the purpose of asking him if that was  6 his signature.  7 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  8 MR. GRANT:  And he said it — I believe his answer was, "It  9 looks like mine, the writing looks familiar, but I  10 can't remember it."  You had earlier asked him about a  11 trapline purchase and a down payment.  When we left  12 the courtroom -- or the discovery room, he said to me,  13 "I remember something about" -- and I can't remember  14 whether he said the down payment or about $51 or  15 something like that.  I told him just to wait and that  16 he would have an opportunity to answer that -- your  17 question.  I want to put it on the record now, because  18 that way you can either ask him or you don't have to,  19 but at least you know you have that opportunity.  I  20 think you may want to recanvass this because he didn't  21 seem to remember when you were asking him earlier.  He  22 had not read nor had Exhibit 3 been read to him or the  23 contents of it at that time.  24 MR. MACKENZIE:  25 Q   And you went down to Burns Lake to get a refund of  2 6 your down payment?  27 A   Yes.  I thought about it and I -- after all the  28 questions you put to me, it was just like you pinched  2 9 my ear.  I remembered some things that I did have  30 intent to purchase that trapline, and -- because it  31 was put up for sale and I had been with Alec Michell  32 on the territory previous to that, and the result of  33 that I wanted to purchase it.  And -- but after the  34 intent I didn't -- the Broman Lake Band insisted that  35 I not purchase it, and then they took over and they in  36 turn -- the band -- and they in turn signed it over to  37 Jimmy Skin, and all I know is that he used that  38 territory or trapline for two seasons that I know of.  39 Q   And you went down to Burns Lake to get a refund of  4 0 your down payment, didn't you?  41 A   No.  42 Q   I'm showing to you a letter dated July 18, 1962.  Did  43 you have someone prepare that letter for you?  44 THE INTERPRETER:  45 "Dear Indian Agent, just dropping in a  46 line to say that I have come to Burns Lake to  47 see you about my trapline and we have been 39  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1  here twice and we couldn't reach you.  Today  2 is the second time we have come but the  3 reason why I want to see you is I want to get  4 my money back which I have made down payment  5 on the trapline at Nadina Crossing as I have  6 my family to support and I am behind on my  7 car payment.  8 "Our chief counsellor Johnny Mack  9 transfer my bank to Moricetown.  10 "Please send my money back to general  11 delivery Moricetown PO, as I really need it  12 back.  13 "I have written to my dad if they make  14 down payment and they never answer me, so now  15 I want my money.  16 "Sincerely yours, Roy Morrison."  17  18 MR. MACKENZIE:  More on the back.  19 THE INTERPRETER:  20  21 "Write soon.  We'll be expecting your reply.  22 I am not working this summer and I'm short of  2 3 money."  24  25 Dated July 18, 1962, Burns Lake.  26 A   This is not my signature at all.  Compared with the  27 other signature it's -- you can see the difference.  28 You can see that I have a very slow when I write my  29 signature, I'm very slow.  30 Q   But you had that letter sent to the Indian agent,  31 didn't you?  32 A   I -- like I said before, and if you ask me again I'm  33 going to tell you the same thing, that I -- once I  34 went out with my uncle.  I never pursued this money  35 that you are talking about.  I forgot all about it  36 completely after I went out with Alec Michell.  37 Q   When did Alec Michell die  38 A   Could have been around -- between 1952 and '53 when he  39 passed on.  He died suddenly and I couldn't recall.  40 Q   And after his death, you asked to purchase his  41 trapline, didn't you?  42 MR. GRANT:  Asked who?  43 MR. MACKENZIE:  44 Q   You asked the Indian agent to purchase Alec Michell's  45 trapline for you, didn't you?  46 A   Like I explained before, I put money on it and I never  47 bothered with it again after that, and I just let it 40  altogether.  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 go  2 Q   And then the -- you know that the Department of Indian  3 Affairs bought that trapline for you, didn't they?  4 MR. GRANT:  Just a second.  Do you have — is that —  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  That's what it says in Exhibit 3.  6 MR. GRANT:  Sorry, you are referring to Exhibit 3?  All right,  7 go ahead.  8 MR. MACKENZIE:  Do you want that again?  Do you want that  9 question again, Mr. Holland?  10 THE INTERPRETER:  Yes.  11 MR. MACKENZIE:  12 Q   You know that the Department of Indian Affairs  13 purchased Alec Michell's registered trapline for you,  14 don't you?  15 A   Like I said before, I made the $51 down payment and I  16 never bothered with it again after that, and I moved  17 into this area here shortly after that.  18 Q   And you agreed to repay the money for the registered  19 trapline, you agreed to repay the money to the Indian  20 Affairs Department, didn't you?  21 A   Like I told you before, I moved here and then as a  22 result of that, they gave it to somebody else.  23 Q   They gave it to somebody else because you did not  24 repay as you promised to; isn't that true?  25 MR. GRANT:  Well, how can this witness -- I mean is there  26 some -- you have the entire file here.  How can this  27 witness explain why they would have given the trapline  28 to someone else, some third party, unless there was  29 some correspondence with this witness saying, "This is  30 what we did."  And I don't know, it may well be that  31 you have something there, so I would ask you to at  32 least let me examine it.  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  34 Q   Okay.  You promised to repay the purchase price to  35 Indian Affairs, didn't you?  36 A   I'll tell you again the same thing.  As a result of my  37 moving up to this area here, they gave it to somebody  38 else, and then I never went back to my uncle's  39 territory after that.  40 Q   And you promised to repay Indian Affairs, didn't you?  41 MR. GRANT:  Well, he has acknowledged that he signed Exhibit 3  42 and the document speaks for itself.  43 MR. MACKENZIE:  44 Q   Did you know that you promised to repay Indian  45 Affairs?  46 A   I didn't put no money on it after I initially made  4 7 down payment. 41  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 Q   You didn't  make any further payments to Indian Affairs  2 for the purchase price of Alec Michell registered  3 trapline?  4 A   No.  5 Q   And now I'm referring again to this letter of July 18,  6 1962.  Do you deny that that letter was sent on your  7 behalf?  8 A   No, it's not my signature at all.  9 Q   Was that letter sent on your behalf to the Indian  10 agent?  11 A   I don't know.  It's been a long time.  12 Q   You don't know anything about that letter?  13 A  My father's sister son is the one that gave this  14 terr -- this trapline to, and he since passed on and I  15 don't even know who has that place now.  16 Q   Would you please direct your attention to this letter.  17 I'm asking you, do you know anything about this letter  18 of July 18, 1962?  19 MR. GRANT:  And he has answered you.  20 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm sorry, what was the answer?  21 MR. GRANT:  He said, "I don't know, it's been a long time."  He  22 said that to you.  23 A   No, I don't know anything about.  24 MR. MACKENZIE:  Mark it as an exhibit for identification.  25  26 (EXHIBIT 4 FOR IDENTIFICATION - Letter dd. July 18,  27 1962)  28  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  30 Q   Did you receive a letter from the Department of Indian  31 Affairs requesting payment for the trapline purchase  32 price?  I'm showing you that letter dated November 4,  33 1959?  34 A   No, like I told you, I didn't make no payments at all.  35 MR. MACKENZIE:  Mark that letter as an exhibit for  36 identification, letter dated November 4, 1959.  37  38 (EXHIBIT 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION - Letter dd. November 4,  39 1959)  40  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm showing to you a file copy of a letter dated  42 July 23, 1962.  This is an answer to the letter dated  43 July 18, 1962, marked Exhibit 4 for Identification.  44 MR. GRANT:  May I see it please.  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  46 Q   Yes.  Now Mr. Holland has the letter.  That letter  47 responds to this Exhibit 4 for Identification, and 42  it says that  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 asks for --  they cannot give you your  down payment back because you had the use of the line,  Alec Michell's line for four years.  Did you receive  that letter?  A   Like I said before, I travel with my uncle on that  thing for 1948 to '52.  I — after that I didn't go  back out there and I didn't make payments and I think  that Sophie and them had given this to somebody else  at that time, but I never went out there again after  that.  Q   Did you get a copy of this letter?  A   No, I couldn't recall.  Like I told you, it's been a  long time and once I went that far I didn't pursue it  any further.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Mark that letter of July 23, 1962 as the next  exhibit for identification.  MR.  MR.  MR.  MR.  (EXHIBIT 6 FOR IDENTIFICATION  1962)  Letter dd. July 23,  MR.  GRANT:  I'm going to, before redirect, require to either  examine the file which is the federal document number  -- which is the file from which these documents are  placed, in its entirety.  I don't require either you  or the federal defendant to provide a copy to me if,  as I see you have the original file, I can just review  it.  MACKENZIE:  Q   Yes.  Now, are you aware that Alec Michell trapline was  transferred into your name, registered trapline?  A   Like I said before, after -- I don't know nothing  about that.  Like I said before, when they say on the  paper that I used it for four years, that is an  outright lie.  After my uncle died, I never went back  out there once.  Q   Now let's go back to Nora Lee Matthew Sam registered  trapline.  Showing you a document dated October 21,  1987.  GRANT:  This is from your document, the provincial document  list?  MACKENZIE:  Q   Yes.  A   Yes, that is when it was leased out.  Q   That's your signature on that document?  A   Yes.  MACKENZIE:  Mark that as the next exhibit, please. 43  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 (EXHIBIT 7  Memo to Regional Manager of Fish and  2 Wildlife dd. October 21, 1987)  3  4 MR. GRANT:  What's the number on the trapline?  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  6 Q   Yes.  The date of the document is October 21, 1987,  7 the trapline number is 0604T041.  8 So you think that you still own that Nora Lee  9 Matthew Sam trapline; is that true?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Yes.  You are not aware that you have signed that  12 trapline over to John Mould; is that true?  13 A   No.  It was leased.  14 Q   Okay.  When is the last time you were trapping on that  15 Nora Lee Matthew Sam trapline?  16 A   I'm still trapping out there now.  17 Q   And is it still leased to John Mould?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   When was the last time you were trapping there?  20 MR. GRANT:  He's already answered.  He said he's still  21 trapping -- or I'm sorry, did you ask him when he was  22 last out there?  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  24 MR. GRANT:  I'm sorry.  25 A   I'm still out there now.  I'm here today as of --  26 because of this.  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  28 Q   You are trapping out on that line this month?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And is that registered trapline in the territory --  31 I'm sorry, I've already asked that.  32 You have the permission of Knedebeas to trap on  33 that Nora Lee Matthew Sam registered trapline?  34 A  My father and my aunt and them, they are all Gilseyhu  35 and we as Neg'edeld'es do have some rights there.  36 Q   And where -- where exactly are you trapping, where is  37 your trapline?  38 A   On this side, which would be the north side, is where  39 we go there to trap and hunt beaver.  40 Q   North side of what?  41 A   Nee teh Ben.  42 Q   Is that Francois Lake?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And where on the north side are you trapping?  45 A   The north side at the head of the lake.  46 Q   Okay.  I'm showing you a map which has a trapline  47 outlined on it and with your name written in the 44  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 outline.  Is that the outline of the Nora Lee Sam  2 registered trapline?  3 A   Indicating up into this area up here.  4 Q   Pointing to an area directly north of the western end  5 of Francois lake?  6 A   Um-hmm, that's where they trap.  I have a map that's  7 identical to that one.  8 Q   All right.  Are you trapping near Tsighass Lake?  Are  9 you trapping near there?  10 A   Yeah, around there.  Tseeyl K'ez Ben not Tsighass.  11 Q   Okay.  In English that's Tsighass Lake?  12 MR. GRANT:  I think that's Wet'suwet'en too.  It's on the map as  13 that.  14 MR. MACKENZIE:  15 Q   Yes.  The Indian word is Tseeyl K'ez Ben.  Is that  16 where your trapline is?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   And which side of the lake is it on?  19 A   It's on this side of the lake.  20 Q   Which side is that, north?  21 A   North side.  22 Q   Is -- does your trapline go up to Parrott Lake?  23 A   Yes, it goes towards there.  24 Q   And is that the area that John Mould is leasing from  25 you?  26 A   No.  He is on the other side.  27 Q   And where is the other side?  28 A   It's on the other side of the lake.  29 Q   On the other side of Francois Lake?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Did you apply for a trapping licence last year?  32 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  What's the relevance?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm going to put that to him and ask him whether  34 he can identify his signature on that licence.  35 MR. GRANT:  Well, I think it's a post-1984 activity and the  36 Chief Justice has made it clear that he is not going  37 to take -- he doesn't see the relevance of post-1984  38 activity generally, unless you are raising this on a  39 credibility or some other issue.  If you ask him about  40 a similar document before 1984, I would withdraw my  41 objection.  42 MR. MACKENZIE:  Did you call the game warden — do you recall  43 calling the game warden in 1981 to complain about  44 people poaching on your territory, on your registered  45 trapline?  46 MR. GRANT:  By telephone?  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  By telephone. 45  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. GRANT:  Do you  have a more precise date for him?  2 MR. MACKENZIE:  3 Q   November 23, 1981?  4 A   Yes, I can remember that.  It was regarding on the  5 other side of the lake, the white people were poaching  6 on there that time.  7 Q   And why did you call the game warden?  8 A   I'll -- I called the game warden because they deal  9 with white people, and they -- they were destroying  10 the dams, beaver dams and things like that, that is  11 why we were -- we called the game warden.  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  Okay.  I would like to mark as an exhibit, this  13 map of the Nora Lee Matthew Sam registered trapline,  14 your registered trapline which you identified.  15 MR. GRANT:  And I ask to mark it as an exhibit for  16 identification.  He said he has one like it, I'm  17 assuming it's one of the documents he is going to  18 provide to me tomorrow morning, but I would like to  19 review and compare them before I should agree it goes  20 in as an exhibit proper.  21 MR. MACKENZIE:  We can disagree on that because it's my view  22 that he identified that as his trapline.  23 MR. GRANT:  Well, this map is — it's 14, — two 11 by 14 sheets  24 taped together with an orange outline and much  25 writing.  It's a poor photocopy and I find it very  26 difficult to read myself.  I'm sure the witness, who  27 cannot read, finds it even more difficult to read the  28 map, and I'm sure he has seen papers that look like  29 this and I want to make sure that this is -- if this  30 is the same as the one that he has, then that would  31 resolve it.  I don't know how he could identify it  32 other than that.  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  Okay.  The record will show that he did identify  34 it but we have a disagreement there so mark it for  35 identification.  36  37 (EXHIBIT 8 FOR IDENTIFICATION - Photocopy of Map of  38 Nora Lee Matthew Sam Registered Trapline)  39  40 MR. GRANT:  Request a copy of it.  41 MR. MACKENZIE:  42 Q   Yes.  Now, when you told the judge in Vancouver you  43 owned two traplines, which traplines were you  44 referring to?  45 A   Yes.  I'm entitled to two traplines within the  46 territory and -- in our own way, traditionally, and I  47 was referring to the one that I -- my uncles, the one 46  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 I hold now,  the one we are talking about.  And also at  that time when I was transferred to Moricetown Band,  Dan Michell had explained to me that I could not hold  two traplines, the one I was entitled to at Morice  Lake, so they turned -- transferred it over to Gordon  Hall.  And traditionally when we receive a name,  territory goes with it.  Q   So when you told the judge that you owned two  traplines, you were referring to the Nora Lee Matthew  Sam trapline and the trapline out at McBride Lake; is  that correct?  A   Yes.  Yes, in our own Indian way.  Q   Okay.  And I'm just showing you the application for  registration of a trapline dated April 30th, 1974.  Do  you identify your signature on that application?  A   Yes, that's my signature.  Q   And that's the Nora Lee Matthew Sam trapline?  GRANT:  Well, there is a legal description on that that's  fairly complicated, but it appears that that -- that  appears to be the same -- well, I don't know.  Just a  moment.  Because your documents -- your notice to  admit with respect to this file is not very clear.  My  own understanding is that you have two traplines --  two locations under one trapline.  MACKENZIE:  There is a Topley Matthew Sam and a Nora Lee  Matthew Sam.  The Topley Matthew Sam is the Morice  Lake one and Nora Lee Matthew Sam or Nadina Matthew  Sam or Francois Lake Matthew Sam is the one we are  talking about.  GRANT:  Your notice to admit combines two --  MACKENZIE:  Yes, yes.  GRANT:  -- under one number?  MACKENZIE: Yes, yes. Okay. Well, then, if you have a  concern with that question let me ask another one  before I --  GRANT:  I don't object to your topic or that, I'm just  saying to save time this has a legal description on  it.  MACKENZIE:  Okay, yes.  GRANT:  If you don't want to go through all of this legal  description --  MACKENZIE:  Right.  GRANT:  -- I would suggest there is a way you may want to  rephrase it.  MACKENZIE:  Can we mark that as an exhibit on the basis of  identification first, please.  GRANT:  No objection.  one we are  ta.  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  MR  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  MR  26  27  28  29  30  MR  31  MR  32  MR  33  MR  34  35  36  MR  37  38  39  MR  40  MR  41  42  MR  43  MR  44  45  MR  46  47  MR 47  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 (EXHIBIT 9  FOR IDENTIFICATION - Application for  2 Registration of Trapline dd. April 30, 1974)  3  4 MR. MACKENZIE:  5 Q   So is it fair to say that you have only signed -- you  6 have signed a trapline application only for the Nora  7 Lee Matthew Sam registered trapline?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Now, this is an application for renewal and return of  10 registered trapline holder dated November 12, 1980.  11 Can you identify your signature on that?  12 A   Yes, that's my signature.  13 Q   Now, was that returned -- this return we just looked  14 at, was that for another trapline other than the Nora  15 Lee Matthew Sam trapline?  16 A   I don't know.  I can't -- is that -- where are you?  17 Where is this referring to?  18 Q   Well, there is no reference on that return as to which  19 trapline it's for, that's why I was wondering, did you  20 submit a return for a trapline other than Nora Lee  21 Matthew Sam?  22 MR. GRANT:  In 1980?  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  24 Q   In 1980?  25 A   The only one I know is Nora Lee Matthew Sam trapline.  26 Q   Okay.  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  Mark that as the next exhibit, please.  28  29 (EXHIBIT 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION - Application for  30 Renewal and Return of Registered Trapline Holder dd.  31 November 12, 1980)  32  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  34 Q   You were also trapping on the Louie Tommy trapline,  35 weren't you?  36 A   Yes.  I trapped there for my wife and we don't go  37 there lately.  38 Q   And that's in Laksamshu territory, is it?  39 A   It's Laksilyu.  I understand they gave it back to  40 Peter Jim.  41 Q   It's near Round Lake?  42 A   It's around Dzee ben.  43 Q   Is that Round Lake?  44 A   No.  It's across, different.  45 Q   Is it Coffin Lake?  46 A   Yeah, that's the one they call Dzee ben.  47 Q   It's across the highway from Round Lake; is that 48  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 correct?  2 A   Yes.  It's across the tracks also.  3 Q   And Round Lake Tommy used to have that registered  4 trapline?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   And how is it that you were trapping in the Laksilyu  7 territory?  8 A   I trapped there for -- I trapped there with -- and his  9 grandchildren went out trapping and I went along with  10 them, and later on he put me on with the rest as one  11 of the people in the company.  12 Q   Did you become a member of the Louie Tommy trapline?  13 A   He included me in his company so I would help his  14 grandchildren when they were out trapping.  15 Q   Okay.  Now talking about the Nora Lee Matthew Sam  16 trapline, before you signed the document relating to  17 John Mould, you leased your trapline to other people?  18 A   No.  19 Q   You didn't lease your trapline to anyone else?  2 0 A   No.  21 Q   This is on credibility.  22 MR. GRANT:  I don't object.  I understand you are referring to  23 post-1984 documents.  I'm not going to object because  24 you want to use them for credibility.  25 MR. MACKENZIE:  26 Q   I'm handing you a note dated December 3, 1984.  Can  27 you identify your signature on that document?  28 A  Who is this letter made out to?  Do you want me to  29 read this?  30 Q   Yes, please, could you read the letter to him?  31 A   Yeah, I did give permission, but he didn't go out  32 there at all.  33 Q   Okay.  Mark that —  34 A   Because he never gave me nothing for going out there  35 if he did go out.  He didn't go out there at all.  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  Mark that note dated December 3, 1984 as the  37 next exhibit, please.  38  39 (EXHIBIT 11 - Letter dd. December 3, 1984)  40  41 MR. GRANT:  I think as it stands it will have to be an exhibit  42 for identification.  43 MR. MACKENZIE:  44 Q   Sorry, can you identify your signature on that  45 document?  46 A   Yes, that's my signature.  47 MR. GRANT:  Okay, I'm sorry.  I will request a copy of that as 49  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 well before  I get into redirect.  2 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  3 MR. GRANT:  Or is it in the notice to admit documents?  4 MR. MACKENZIE:  5 Q   I'm sorry, I don't know.  6 Okay.  Now, you rented your trapline, your  7 registered trapline to Len Klassen in 19 -- December  8 1984, didn't you?  9 A   No, I never.  10 Q   Well, why did you sign this letter of December 3,  11 1984?  12 A   No, he hasn't gone out there, and I asked him if he  13 didn't and he said yes to this, but he is saying no to  14 him going out there.  15 Q   So you intended to rent the trapline to Mr. Klassen?  16 A   He did ask me to go out there but he didn't go.  17 Q   And you agreed to let him go out there, didn't you?  18 A   Yes.  I was -- I let him go out there for a short  19 period but he didn't go out there at all.  20 Q   So now John Mould is trapping on your registered  21 trapline, is he not?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   And he is leasing the line to someone else, do you  24 know that?  25 A   No, I don't know nothing about that.  26 Q   Now, did the Moricetown Band purchase a snowmobile for  27 you to use on the trapline?  28 MR. GRANT:  When are you referring to?  29 MR. MACKENZIE:  Recently.  3 0 MR. GRANT:  When?  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  I don't know when it was.  32 MR. GRANT:  Post-1984?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  I don't know.  34 MR. GRANT:  That's when I'm instructed.  If it is, I object,  35 because it's not relevant.  36 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm going to put this document to him, and I  37 guess you should look at it in view of your previous  38 objections.  So while you are looking at it I would  39 like to make -- I'm going to ask that question and get  40 your objection.  Mr. -- on the snowmobile.  41 MR. GRANT:  Just a minute before you do that.  What is this?  42 MR. MACKENZIE:  That's the ARDA application.  43 MR. GRANT:  Is this a listed document of either you or the  44 federal defendant?  45 MR. MACKENZIE:  I don't know.  46 MR. GRANT:  Is there an exhibit?  47 MR. MACKENZIE:  No, I don't think it's an exhibit — well, why 50  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 don't I  find out if it's listed, if that's a concern  to you.  GRANT:  Well, that's one element of the problem.  I mean the  second element of the problem is that I haven't seen  it even if it is listed, and I would like -- I don't  know how much other areas you have to cover in your  cross, but I would like an opportunity to review this.  I don't really want to make my objection and argue my  objection on this particular point until I've had a  chance to review this file.  MACKENZIE:  Okay.  GRANT:  So I would like a chance to look at it tonight, have  that file and look at it tonight.  I'm not certain  whether I'll object tomorrow, whether I'll maintain my  objection or not.  MACKENZIE:  Okay.  Has the Moricetown Band purchased a snowmobile for you to use on your registered trapline?  GRANT:  I think that's what that file is about.  That's what  I'm asking that you not ask that.  MACKENZIE:  I'm not asking on the basis of that file.  GRANT:  Are you asking him about something that's post-1984?  MACKENZIE:  Yes, I think so, but I don't know.  GRANT:  That's my instruction is that it is post-'84.  Unless you can explain its relevance in some way to  me, I think that it comes under the Chief Justice's  ruling.  I think there is obviously some areas of  exception to that rule but I don't know whether that  would apply in this case.  MACKENZIE:  Are you objecting to that question on that  basis?  GRANT:  I'm inviting you to explain the relevance of it.  MACKENZIE:  But you are objecting to the question on the  basis just as it's put, is that my -- am I misstating  your position?  GRANT:  I'm requesting you -- I'm saying that I think there  -- I'm saying there is a primary principle of  relevance that the Chief Justice has indicated on  post-1984 incidents.  This is a post-1984 incident.  I  think there are also exceptions where it can be  relevant.  I'm requesting you to inform me of the  relevance of it and then I will be able to advise you  if I'm objecting or not.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  And if he -- I prefer you to do that here rather  than go down to the courtroom and point out the  relevance of it to the Chief Justice at which point I  may say, "Well, I'm not objecting."  if  it's :  2  3  MR  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  MR  12  MR  13  14  15  16  MR  17  18  MR  19  20  MR  21  MR  22  MR  23  MR  24  25  26  27  28  29  MR  30  31  MR  32  MR  33  34  35  MR  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  MR  44  MR  45  46  47 51  .erstand.  We:  2  3  4  MR  5  MR  6  7  MR  8  9  MR  10  11  MR  12  MR  13  14  15  16  MR  17  18  MR  19  MR  20  21  MR  22  MR  23  24  25  MR  26  MR  27  MR  28  MR  29  30  31  32  33  MR  34  35  MR  36  37  38  39  40  41  MR  42  43  44  45  MR  46  MR  47  MR  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes,  Well, I'm asking that  question at the present time because it relates to Mr.  Morris' activities on that registered trapline.  GRANT:  Post-1984?  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  According to your instructions.  So you  are objecting to that question?  GRANT:  Well, you say you are asking on the basis of his  activity on the registered trapline.  MACKENZIE:  Well, let me -- maybe I can assist you a bit  more.  Mr. Morris says he still owns that trapline.  GRANT:  Um-hmm.  MACKENZIE:  And my instructions are that he sold it, that he  has relinquished it and he doesn't own it, and my  question relating to the snowmobile continues in that  line of inquiry.  GRANT:  Well, you put that document which is an exhibit, the  John Mould document.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  And you've questioned him on what his position was  with Mould.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  And when he himself also uses it.  This is all  post-1984 we are talking about and I haven't objected  to any of that.  MACKENZIE:  Yes, that's right.  GRANT:  Because I understand the point you are raising.  MACKENZIE:  Yes.  GRANT:  I'm sorry, I am still at a loss as to what  difference it makes with respect to this issue of the  credibility or regards his activity on that trapline  with the purchase of a snowmobile by the Moricetown  Band.  I just can't see the relevance.  MACKENZIE:  I have to explain that without the witness being  present, and --  GRANT:  Well, I don't mind if you want to do that.  If you  think that's going to -- I don't mind the witness and  the interpreter or the witness being excused.  I don't  mind the interpreter being excused if that's what you  want.  I don't mind going off the record if that's  what you want to do.  MACKENZIE:  Well, I'm almost finished with this trapline,  this is probably the last question, last question on  this area, so maybe we could do that, take a short  break.  GRANT:  Is that -- maybe we can leave this.  MACKENZIE:  We can discuss it after.  GRANT:  We can discuss it after and go on to something else. 52  should use as  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 I think we  much of the time as we can  when the witness is here.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Q   Okay.  Now, Mr. Morris, have you ever applied for  permits to trap on registered traplines?  A   No.  Q   And you said in your interrogatories, your answer  number 93, "I fish and hunt when I want to."  Have you  got that, 93?  A   Yes.  Q   You said:  "I fish and hunt when I want to.  I do not take  permits because I am the owner of the territory."  Is that what you said?  MR. GRANT:  I think you should read the rest of it to the end  because it's -- I'm not -- the first sentence is  separate, you missed out part of that answer.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Q  Yes  A  Yes  Q  Yes  You also say:  "I have told representatives of the Ministry of  Forests and the Fish and Wildlife Branch on many  occasions.  They tell me I should have permits to  hunt or fish and I tell them I do not need permits  on my own territory."  Is that what you said?  A   Yes.  Q   Well, you applied for a permit to kill a bull moose on  December 29, 1976, didn't you?  MR. GRANT:  I think that the question should be he was issued a  permit, because it doesn't seem to be -- these  applications can be -- or these permits can be issued.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Q   Okay.  Were you -- did you apply for a permit to kill  a moose on December 29, 1976?  A   I think about that time, because of my -- I had a  stroke and I wasn't working, I asked for a permit.  Q   And over on the next page, did you apply for a  resident trapping licence on March 21, 1975?  A   Them times, they -- you had to keep that up.  MR. GRANT:  This is with respect to the Louie Tommy line from  the face of the document? 53  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  2 Q   Yes.  That's your signature on that trapping licence,  3 A12515?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   And you also applied for a resident trapping licence  6 on January 8, 1974, didn't you?  7 MR. GRANT:  Just a second.  With respect to the Louie Tommy  8 line?  9 A   That's the one on Steven Tommy's line.  10 MR. MACKENZIE:  11 Q   I think we are getting a little mixed up now.  Okay,  12 referring to the March 21, 1975 licence A12515,  13 attached to it is an application for renewal and  14 return of registered trapline dated November 9, 1976;  15 did you sign that also?  16 A   Yes, that's my signature.  17 MR. MACKENZIE:  Off the record, please.  18 (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION)  19 MR. MACKENZIE:  Let's mark that resident trapping licence A12515  20 and the application dated November 9, 1976 as the next  21 exhibit.  22  23 (EXHIBIT 12 - Application for Renewal and Return of  24 Registered Trapline dd. November 9, 1976 and Licence  25 A12515 dd. March 21, 1975)  26  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm going to go into the territories, a new  28 subject matter, or do you want --  29 MR. GRANT:  Do we want to adjourn?  I mean can you do something  30 in five minutes or are you --  31 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, let me just ask a couple of questions on  32 this point.  33 MR. GRANT:  Exhibit 670?  34 MR. MACKENZIE:  35 Q   Yes.  36 Now, in your affidavit, Exhibit 670, you speak  37 about Kloum Khun's territory at Isaac Lake.  And in  38 Section B you speak about Smogelgem's territory at  39 Parrott Creek?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   Section C, you speak about Hagwilnegh's territory at  42 Maxan Lake?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And in Section D you talk about Madeek's territory and  45 Broman Lake?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   And you do not mention any of the territories of Woos 54  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1 in your  affidavit, do you?  2 A No, I don't speak on that.  3 Q And where are Woos' territories?  4 A Morice Lake.  5 Q Does Woos have any other territories?  6 A You are situated on one of the territories right here.  7 Q So in the Smithers area?  8 A Yes.  9 Q And does Woos have any other territories?  10 A I sold the two areas here.  11 Q Now, at the -- you were at the all clans feast in  12 Moricetown in April 1986?  13 A Yes.  14 Q And you spoke about the Woos territories?  15 A Yes.  16 Q Do you know about a Woos territory at upper Harold  17 Price Creek.  18 MR. GRANT:  I think you should stop at a convenient point, Mr.  19 Mackenzie, I don't want to keep the Chief Justice  20 waiting.  21 MR. MACKENZIE:  22 Q That's right.  Do you know about the territory at  23 upper Harold Price Creek?  24 A Whereabouts is Harold Price Creek?  25 Q Now, let me ask you another question:  You are the  26 main person with knowledge of the territory of Woos,  27 aren't you?  28 A Yes.  29 Q Yes.  And do you know or did you know Dick Naziel?  30 A Yes, I know him well.  31 Q And do you know where Dick Naziel had his registered  32 trapline?  33 A Yes.  34 Q Yes.  And did he have his registered trapline in a  35 territory of Woos?  36 A Some parts.  Out towards Buck Flats.  37 Q I'm talking about Dick Naziel.  Do you know Dick  38 Naziel?  39 A Yes.  40 Q And where did Dick Naziel have his registered  41 trapline?  42 A Yes.  They went out towards around the Buck Flats  43 area.  There was also Peter Alfred went out there and  44 around C'e K'ez, that's Madeek's territory also.  45 Q And Woos does not have a territory in Buck Flats, does  46 it?  47 A No. 55  R. Morris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Mackenzie 1    MR. MACKENZIE:  Do  you know -- I think we'll finish it there.  2  3 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  4  5  6 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  7 a true and accurate transcript of the  8 proceedings herein transcribed to the  9 best of my skill and ability.  10  11  12  13  14    15 Toni Kerekes,  16 O.R., R.P.R.  17 United Reporting Service Ltd.  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10036  Submission by Mr. Mackenzie  1 SMITHERS, B.C.  2 DECEMBER 5, 198 8  3  4 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)  5  6 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  7 THE COURT:  Well, we are going to get some chargeable hours in  8 today, are we -- or rather I am.  All right, what was  9 the problem, Mr. Mackenzie?  10 MR. MACKENZIE:  My lord, we are cross-examining Mr. Roy Morris  11 on his affidavit which is Exhibit 6 -- or correct --  12 yes, Exhibit 670, and Mr. Morris is testifying through  13 a translator, and a couple of problems have arisen.  14 I asked Mr. Morris questions about his previous  15 testimony in English, in the English language, and it  16 turned out that he had testified at a family court  17 hearing in Vancouver in November 1987 in English.  18 He -- it also turned out that his affidavit had been  19 partially translated to him.  He had also been  2 0 involved in some criminal matters in Smithers, and I  21 think it was unclear whether they were in English or  22 Wet'suwet'en, but I think Mr. Grant can correct me, I  23 think it appeared that that had been done in English  24 too.  And so after these questions, I asked Mr.  25 Morris, "Why do you want to testify in this  26 cross-examination in Wet'suwet'en?"  That's the first.  27 THE COURT:  And there was an objection?  28 MR. MACKENZIE:  Oh yes, there was an objection to that question.  29 Is that the best way to handle it, Mr. Grant, one  30 question at a time?  31 THE COURT:  Well, what do you say is the relevance or  32 materiality of the answer?  33 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, my lord, first of all — well, there is  34 one aspect to this, and that is Mr. Grant takes the  35 position that on Mr. Morris' examination for  36 discovery, he should have had a translator there.  His  37 examination for discovery was not translated either,  38 and so --  39 THE COURT:  He was examined in English?  40 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  My question really relates to what the  41 problem is for Mr. Morris and why he decided to  42 testify in Wet'suwet'en now as opposed to testifying  43 in English in Vancouver and testifying in English on  44 his examination for discovery, and I don't know what  45 the answer will be, but I anticipated that it would  46 relate to the problems that Mr. Grant says appeared on  47 the examination for discovery, and there might be a 10037  Submission by Mr. Mackenzie  Submission by Mr. Grant 1 reason why he  feels that this proceeding is more  2 appropriate for him to speak in Wet'suwet'en.  3 THE COURT:  You are not challenging his right to give his  4 evidence in Wet'suwet'en?  5 MR. MACKENZIE:  No, my lord, no.  6 THE COURT:  In the Wet'suwet'en language?  You are merely saying  7 that you are entitled to examine him on his reasons  8 for being examined in that language?  9 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  10 THE COURT:  All right.  And what is the — what is the  11 materiality or relevance of the answer if he says, "I  12 am more comfortable in Wet'suwet'en," or, "I think my  13 evidence will be better, I'll understand the questions  14 better if it's in my language," or if he says, "I  15 don't have a reason, I just prefer Wet'suwet'en."  16 What's the relevance or the materiality of the answer,  17 regardless of what it is?  18 MR. MACKENZIE:  Well, the relevance then will relate to all the  19 documents I have which are in English, which -- all  20 the English language documents signed by him, and --  21 THE COURT:  Of course they speak for themselves in English,  22 don't they?  23 MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, that's correct.  24 MR. GRANT:  And he has identified -- this witness cannot read or  25 write as I understand, and he -- but he can sign his  26 signature and he has identified on many of these  27 documents his signature, and the documents have been  2 8 put to him, many documents have gone to him, that's  29 not an objectionable matter at all.  30 MR. MACKENZIE:  And I anticipate — I anticipate some problems  31 with the examination, using examination for discovery  32 questions and answers, and I wanted to prepare that in  33 advance, prepare in advance for those questions.  34 THE COURT:  All right.  Well —  35 MR. MACKENZIE:  It relates to the process rather than the actual  36 materiality to the issues in the lawsuit.  37 THE COURT:  All right.  What's your contribution to this, Mr.  38 Grant, except for the fact that you made the  39 objection?  40 MR. GRANT:  Well, yes.  I apologize, my lord, for my casual  41 wear, I wasn't prepared to be in court.  42 THE COURT:  I don't mind, Mr. Grant.  Go ahead, we'll do the  43 best we can.  44 MR. GRANT:  My point is, basically, in light of your ruling on  45 this very topic which was -- which was a few weeks ago  46 when we started with -- that my friend could ask a  47 witness about their knowledge and skill in the English 1003?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Submission by Mr. Grant  language as part of their cross-examination, and my  friend spent, I think, upwards of at least 30 minutes  on that very topic.  He canvassed very fully with him  all of these areas and then at the very end he says,  "Why do you want to testify in Wet'suwet'en?"  Now,  that -- the answer to that question can -- as you say,  can be any number of things, including the fact that  after talking with counsel -- and I'm setting out on  the record at the beginning, that it was my view as  counsel that he needed a translator, I pointed that  out on the record to my friends at the beginning.  After review of his discovery where I was not counsel  on the discovery, I'm not -- I was not counsel with  him in his family court hearing in Vancouver.  So, I  really take the point, as you have said it, and I  think I agree with what you framed, what is the  materiality?  Who cares why he wants to testify in  Wet'suwet'en?  The issue is, the evidence has gone all  day very -- generally quite well, he has been  answering the questions and I -- there are many points  in the discovery transcript that I've noted where it's  quite clear that he did not answer the question that  was asked of him.  He answered a question maybe, but  it wasn't -- there was really comprehension  difficulties that I read when I read --  You see lots of witnesses do that, Mr. Grant.  That's true. And hopefully, though, that in this  cross-examination, he will be able to -- that he is  being more --  Well, Mr. Grant, what about the question of culture  which Chief Justice Dickson says is interwoven with  legend and history into land claims, does the question  not go to the culture of the witness and might his  reasons not relate to something to do with his  "culture"?  Well, I mean they --  It's collateral, so you are going to -- your friend  is going to be bound by the answer.  Um-hmm.  Can't call evidence on it.  Well —  He's not bound by the answer, he is stuck with the  answer is more precise categorization.  Right.  Well, I have your point that the witness may  say something that deals with his culture or with his  own preference.  I was worried that this would be the  beginning of, "Why do you want to testify in  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT: 10039  Wet'suwet'en  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Mr. Mackenzie 1  here?"  And then after that answer,  "Why" -- and ask, "Then why did you testify in English  then and why did you testify in English there?"  That  we were going down a rather much longer road.  THE COURT:  Yes.  I can see some reason why that might be  relevant too, if it goes to culture here it goes to  culture there.  And it goes to the genuineness of the  culture, perhaps.  MR. GRANT:  Well —  THE COURT:  Or the consistency of it might be a better word.  MR. GRANT:  I'm not — I think my point, I think, was best  stated by your lordship when you requested Mr.  Mackenzie --  THE COURT:  So what.  MR. GRANT:  Yeah, so what.  And I'm not going to argue it more  strongly than that.  THE COURT: Yes. How many of these have you got, Mr. Mackenzie,  between you?  MR. MACKENZIE: There is another series of questions that really  can be grouped under the characterization of post-1984  activities.  THE COURT:  Is that all?  MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well, I want to think about this one.  Let's proceed with the other one then.  MR. MACKENZIE:  Now, I asked some -- we were speaking about  trapline activities with respect to several items, and  Mr. Grant has objected generally to any questions with  the qualification that I'll explain -- has objected  generally to any questions relating to activities or  events after 1984.  And Mr. Grant has permitted me to  ask some questions relating to events after 1984 where  they relate to the credibility of the witness, that is  where the witness, for example, says he owns the  trapline and I put a document to him showing that he  sold a trapline, Mr. Grant has permitted that.  But I  asked Mr. Morris about his brother, Eddie Morris, and  I asked him, "Are you aware that Eddie Morris has sold  his trapline to a white man," and Mr. Grant objected.  He said it was after 1984, it wasn't relevant.  And the other question in this category is -- I  think Mr. Grant's considering this -- but the other  question is relating to Mr. Roy Morris' own trapline  activities.  And I asked him whether the Moricetown  Band had purchased a snowmobile for him to use on his  registered trapline.  Mr. Grant objected to that,  saying that on his instructions it related to 10040  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Mr. Grant 1 something that  occurred after 1984.  And my reasons  2 for asking those questions, again, related to the  3 current use of the area, of these registered trapping  4 areas by the plaintiffs, and the participation of  5 the -- in the second case, the participation of the  6 Indian band in the administration and development of  7 of the registered traplines.  8 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Grant.  9 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  There is a long series of questions my friend  10 did raise with respect to traplines.  My friend has  11 also provided to us documents which we are still  12 reviewing with respect to what I will refer to as the  13 Steven and Keom Morris trapline, which occurs -- deals  14 with the history of this trapline from the 1930's on.  15 One of the latest documents in this, which is dated  16 1987, relates to the suggestion that my friend puts to  17 the witness.  My submission is that what difference  18 does it make whether this witness or his brother --  19 well, first of all, what difference does it make if  20 this witness knew or did not know that his brother did  21 something with another trapline after 1984, what does  22 that go to in terms of the case and it's post-1984  23 conduct?  24 Now, my friend then asked about this question of  25 the Moricetown Band.  And he -- I said that I wanted  26 to reserve on that, because I thought there could  27 be -- I'm not -- I wasn't -- I made it clear to my  28 friend that I didn't say that any evidence of anything  29 that occurred after 1984 was automatically not  30 relevant, but that I couldn't understand the  31 relevance.  And he indicated to me is that he had  32 questioned the witness extensively on when he was last  33 on the trapline, what he was doing there and all of  34 these matters.  Then he said this related to whether  35 or not the witness had leased this trapline to a third  36 party or sold it.  Then he said -- he asked about the  37 Moricetown Band purchasing a snowmobile and he said  38 that this was part -- he was asking that question  39 partly as the basis for the activity of the witness on  40 the registered trapline.  And I couldn't connect -- I  41 just couldn't see the relevance of those two  42 questions.  But I do want to be clear that I have not  43 generally -- I don't agree with my friend that I have  44 generally objected to all questions relating to  45 activities after 1984.  I think there are many types  46 of activities after '84 -- or there is areas like in  47 credibility.  But it was a question, my lord, 10041  Ruling by the Court  1 basically from my understanding of your direction to  2 counsel at different times, that you saw very little,  3 if any weight, on the post issuance of the writ  4 conduct of the parties.  But these are the two -- the  5 two specific questions are if the witness knew that  6 his brother sold the trapline in 1987, and did the  7 Moricetown Band purchase a snowmobile, again, sometime  8 after 1984, for the witness.  Those -- I think that  9 I've made the point and I think clarification on them  10 would be appreciated.  11 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Anything in reply, Mr. Mackenzie?  12 MR. MACKENZIE:  No, my lord.  13 THE COURT:  All right.  Well, my ruling sometime ago, I guess it  14 was June if Mr. Grant says it was June, was related to  15 protests that were being mounted in connection with --  16 I think it was Mr. Art Matthews' evidence about  17 trouble with their smokehouse and something to do with  18 the CNR, and I ruled that I didn't think that anything  19 that happened in that connection would be relevant,  20 because we were determining rights as of 1984, the  21 date of the writ.  22 It seems to me that is a different category,  23 something like a -- a Wet'suwet'en person selling a  24 trapline to a white person.  I have heard much  25 evidence about the succession to rights and properties  26 in accordance with Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en laws, and  27 the universality of those practices or laws, seems to  28 me, is easy to state and hard to refute, and one of  29 the ways to refute them is to show departures from  30 them.  And if there has been a sale, even since 1984,  31 because that bears -- that is not something new, that  32 is not a new activity, trapping has been going on in  33 Wet'suwet'en history for longer than needs to be  34 claimed in this lawsuit.  And if there is a departure  35 from an ancient custom, even if it is post-writ, then  36 I think it is relevant to the question of the  37 universality or the general application of those rules  38 or customs.  I think Mr. Morris can be asked if he has  39 sold his trapline even if it is since 1984, and to a  40 white man.  Just a sale, it seems to me, might be of  41 some evidentiary or probative value, more so to a  42 white man, but that's a matter of evidence.  I think  43 that if Mr. Morris knows that his brother has sold his  44 trapline, that he can be asked about that.  For the  45 same reason, I think that this would not be collater-  46 al, and if the plaintiffs put it in evidence, that can  47 be contradicted.  On the other hand, if the defendants 10042  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Ruling by the Court  raise it for the first time in cross-examination, the  plaintiffs have an opportunity -- they are at least  not yet being closed to deal further with it as they  may be advised.  So my answer is that I think that the question is  unobjectionable and should be answered about the sale  of the traplines, as I think would be the case with  regard to any departure from what has been set up by  the plaintiffs as Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en custom.  The  same would not apply to new ventures, if I can put it  that way, which I have already ruled are not material  to this case.  With regard to the question of the reasons for  being examined in Wet'suwet'en with the translator, I  think that that is a matter that need not be answered.  The very fact that the witness could say, "I don't  have any reason, I just want to be examined in  Wet'suwet'en," is enough to satisfy me that the  question has no useful materiality.  I've toyed with  the ideas, as counsel knows, of the question of  whether this would bear on his culture, but on  reflection, I think it fits in that category described  best by Mr. Justice Martin speaking for the Supreme  Court of Canada in Wray where he talks about evidence.  There being a discretion to exclude evidence whose  admissibility is tenuous and whose probative value is  so slight as to not warrant further investigation, and  I think that question falls within that general  classification and I would uphold that objection.  Is that all we have to do?  The only point, my lord, I don't know if you dealt  with the snowmobile question which I view it -- I  think I -- the reason I raise it is I anticipate a  potential problem.  I view it as a new venture because  it all relates to ARDA applications of the Moricetown  Band, but I may be wrong in that interpretation.  The  band made some submissions after the issuance of the  writ.  The snowmobile being used for trapping?  Well, my friend is asking if the snowmobile was  purchased and then the band got into some ventures to  support people, and I think the allegation will be  that it's related to trapping.  I don't think it matters whether the band has snowmobiles or not.  I think it might matter if snowmobiles are used for trapping, although I'm not sure  what difference it would make.  If it's related to  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT: 10043  Ruling by the Court  Proceedings 1 customary practice or  trade or culling your  2 occupation, it seems to me that it's relevant.  That  3 it's just a question of making use of technilogical  4 changes, I don't think it matters.  Half of the lay  5 witnesses I've heard have been wearing eyeglasses and  6 my reaction to that is it doesn't matter.  It's a  7 technilogical advantage and it doesn't relate to  8 anything of importance.  But if, on the other hand,  9 they are using snowmobiles for trapping, it shows two  10 things:  one it shows a departure from normal  11 practice, but it also shows a continuation of that  12 practice but by a different means.  And whether that  13 will be relevant at the end of the day or not is  14 something that I can only speculate upon at this time,  15 but I think it's evidence that might usefully be  16 before the court for the purpose of being weighed  17 later on.  And for that reason I think because it  18 relates to trapping, I think it -- it is different  19 from a question such as if a witness was asked, "I see  20 you are wearing eyeglasses and nylons," or something  21 like that.  As I say, that would not be of any  22 probative value but I think that snowmobiles on the  23 trapline may be relevant for a number of reasons which  24 are both for the plaintiffs and for the defence, and  25 for that reason I think it should be admitted.  26 Something else, Mr. Mackenzie?  27 MR. MACKENZIE:  I'm sorry, my lord, I put my hand up, I meant to  28 stand up myself.  After such a long time only my hand  2 9 got up.  30 My lord, I didn't mention to my friend that I was  31 going to raise that because I've been thinking about  32 it, but I'm going to just raise it because my friend  33 and I have discussed this problem several times today  34 and I'm still unclear.  My friend wants to restrict me  35 in some way from using the examination for discovery  36 transcript, and we've discussed it back and forth.  My  37 friend started off by saying I couldn't use it and  38 then he said that I could use it for purposes used in  39 a trial, and -- so I'm not really clear whether there  40 are any restrictions left on my use of that  41 examination for discovery transcript, and I'm  42 concerned because I think it somehow relates to his  43 concerns about the translation on that examination for  44 discovery.  45 MR. GRANT:  Well, I probably — and I advised my friend after  46 the break that I probably misstated what I had  47 intended to say this morning.  Basically, what I 10044  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Proceedings  wanted to be clear is just because we are in the  milieu of a discovery room, I took the view that we  were, of course, not in a discovery.  No, you are at trial.  And that we are at trial and that my friend can use  this discovery transcript as though we were before  you.  Yes.  And I thought we had clarified that and I said I  don't think there is any -- if my friend wants to use  it for some way other than what he would use at trial,  I would, of course, object to it, but I think that I  stated it in a bad way this morning and that led my  friend to a concern, and then I discussed it further  with him.  So I'm not arguing for any restriction  other than what he would have if we were in this  courtroom.  Are you content with that, Mr. Mackenzie?  MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, my lord.  THE COURT:  All right.  The only other matter, my lord, is that I am counsel  for the plaintiffs' side with respect to the first  witness you will be seeing tomorrow morning.  We have  sat till five o'clock today with this witness.  My  friend, Mr. Mackenzie, indicates he needs an  additional 45 minutes.  I had intended to spend early  tomorrow morning -- the witness is elderly and I  wanted to spend early tomorrow morning with this  witness that will be before you, but Mr. Mackenzie  said he would be 45 minutes and I think Miss  Koenigsberg about 25 minutes.  So we were going to  propose to start at 8:30 and that would mean that we  wouldn't stop and we wouldn't be finished until about  ten.  Yes.  Or five after, and I would just ask -- I know you've  scheduled -- I know what happened today, but if we  could start at 10:30 I just need a bit of time with  this other witness who will be driving down tomorrow  morning.  I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do that if  it's convenient to Mr. Mackenzie and Miss Koenigsberg.  MACKENZIE:  My lord, I did say 45 minutes.  That's an  estimate and I don't want to be restricted to that  because we started late today and --  THE COURT:  Well, you'll be finished by 10:30 tomorrow morning?  MR. MACKENZIE:  Yes, I'll be exerting every effort to be  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR 10045  Proceedings  1 finished by 10:30.  2 MR. GRANT:  I just need a half hour time with my witness  3 tomorrow.  4 THE COURT:  I would say by all means, subject to this, that I  5 think we should try to stay on schedule, and if we  6 start at 10:30, well then I would like to think that  7 we would sit longer in the late afternoon, even if  8 everyone is tired, if it's necessary so to do in order  9 to maintain the schedule as best we can.  10 MR. GRANT:  That's right.  That's why I wanted to complete this  11 witness earlier in the morning.  12 THE COURT:  Yes.  We can start at 10:30 then.  All right, thank  13 you.  14 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  15  16 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 5:40 p.m.)  17  18  19 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  20 a true and accurate transcript of the  21 proceedings herein transcribed to the  22 best of my skill and ability.  23  24  25  26  27  28 Toni Kerekes,  29 O.R., R.P.R.  30 United Reporting Service Ltd.  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.delgamuukw.1-0019490/manifest

Comment

Related Items