Date: 20250228

Docket: T-1207-23

Citation: 2025 FC 382

Ottawa, Ontario, February 28, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Favel

BETWEEN:

ST. THERESA POINT FIRST NATION AND

CHIEF ELVIN FLETT ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF

ALL MEMBERS OF ST. THERESA POINT FIRST NATION AND SANDY LAKE

FIRST NATION AND CHIEF DELORES KAKEGAMIC ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF SANDY LAKE FIRST NATION

Plaintiffs

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Defendant

ORDER AND REASONS

I. Background

[1] The Plaintiffs filed a class action with the Court on June 12, 2023. Generally, the class action seeks to address inadequate housing on-reserve and its resultant impacts on the class members. Certified on April 30, 2024, the class action was divided into two stages. Stage I has a singular common issue question, and Stage II has nine common issue questions, which, for the purposes of the current motions, will not be summarized. A summary judgment motion is scheduled to be heard commencing April 28, 2025.

[2] The Plaintiff brings two preliminary motions in writing before the Court:

a) A motion seeking leave to file more than 5 expert witness reports pursuant to section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5 [Canada Evidence Act], and Rule 52.4 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [FCR]; and,

b) A motion seeking leave to file a memorandum of fact and law exceeding the 30-page limit pursuant to FCR Rule 70(4).

[3] The Defendant opposes both motions. With respect to motion b) above, the Defendant seeks an equivalent increase in the number of pages for its memorandum should the Court exercise its discretion to grant leave to the Plaintiffs, discussed below.

[4] The motion seeking leave to file more than 5 expert reports is granted. The motion seeking to file a memorandum of fact and law exceeding 30 pages is partially granted. The informal motion of the Defendant is also granted. My reasons follow.

II. Applicable Provisions

[5] Section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act states:

Where, in any trial or other proceeding, criminal or civil, it is intended by the prosecution or the defence, or by any party, to examine as witnesses professional or other experts entitled according to the law or practice to give opinion evidence, not more than five of such witnesses may be called on either side without leave of the court or judge or person presiding.

[6] FCR Rule 52.4 states:

Limit on number of experts

52.4 (1) A party intending to call more than five expert witnesses in a proceeding shall seek leave of the Court in accordance with section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Leave considerations

(2) In deciding whether to grant leave, the Court shall consider all relevant matters, including

(a) the nature of the litigation, its public significance and any need to clarify the law;

(b) the number, complexity or technical nature of the issues in dispute; and

(c) the likely expense involved in calling the expert witnesses in relation to the amount in dispute in the proceeding.

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiffs’ Positions

(1) Expert Reports

[7] The Plaintiffs state that more than 5 expert reports are necessary due to the multitude and complexity of the issues to be determined in the summary judgment motion, including: the scope of any fiduciary duties owed; the scope of any duty of care owed; and, if the Defendant is found negligent, whether any Charter (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]) rights have been breached.

[8] The Plaintiffs seek to introduce 12 expert reports. The following is a summary of the 12 experts, the length of the reports including appendices or exhibits, and the content of their reports:

Dr. Kerry Black (52 pages): Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering and the Centre of Environmental Engineering Research and Education at the University of Calgary. Dr. Black addresses Canada’s approach to on-reserve infrastructure from 1999 to the present, including how federal policies, such as funding, influence the design, materials and construction, operations, and maintenance of on-reserve housing. Dr. Black defines ‘adequate housing’ and estimates the costs of building and maintaining such housing.

Dr. Michael Prince (251 pages): Landsdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University of Victoria. Dr. Prince examines First Nations fiscal capacity, and Canada’s funding mechanisms within the On-Reserve Housing Policy, including their constraints on First Nations communities. He addresses the implications of theses issues, the principle and mechanisms for inter-governmental equalization, and Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This consists of __ pages.

Dr. Jocelyn Burzuik (79 pages): President of Sundance Construction and Safety Consulting Inc. Dr. Burzuik conducted housing assessments of St. Theresa Point and Sandy Lake First Nations. Dr. Burzuik evaluates the suitability of materials used in housing, the quality of construction methods applied, and the appropriateness of building locations selected. She examines how these factors impact the quality, longevity and living environment of the homes.

Dr. Hymie Anisman and Dr. Kim Matheson (224 pages-duplicate): Dr. Anisman, Professor of Neuroscience at Carleton University, and Dr. Matheson, Culture and Gender Mental Health Research Chair at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, prepared a joint report. The report examines the psychological and physical health implications of housing conditions on reserve, highlighting the critical link between inadequate housing, overcrowding, and adverse health outcomes faced by First Nations.

Dr. Marleny Bonnycastle (76 pages): Associate Researcher at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Bonnycastle examines the cause and effect of displacement, cultural degradation and intergenerational impacts on First Nations peoples including homelessness, substance abuse, domestic abuse, mental health issues, and poor health outcomes.

Dr. Shirley Thompson (118 pages): Associate Professor at the Natural Resources Institute at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Thompson’s report speaks to the deficits in housing on-reserve, how federal policies such as the Indian Act have contributed to these deficits, and the barriers impacting the housing crisis on-reserve. Dr. Thompson analyzes the relationship between limited housing quantity causing overcrowding, and poor housing quality in the context of health issues such as COVID-19.

Dr. Genevieve Painter (457 pages): Associate Professor of History in the Simone de Beauvoir Institute at Concordia University. Dr. Painter’s report focuses on the period from 1960 to 2017, examining the longstanding inadequacies in housing conditions, and how federal policy decisions since the 1930s have contributed. Dr. Painter traces the evolution of federal housing policy, the variations in federal responsibilities over time, and the underlying objectives that guided policy decisions.

Dr. Barry Lavallee (33 pages): Dr. Lavallee is the Chief Executive Officer of Keewatinohk Inniniw Minoayawin Inc., a not-for-profit organization addressing the health and wellness needs across 23 sovereign First Nations in northern Manitoba. Dr. Lavallee analyzes the impact of overcrowded or poorly maintained housing on the health of First Nations residents on reserves, drawing on his extensive experience providing primary care and researching health outcomes related to housing conditions.

Brenda Gunn (205 pages): Ms. Gunn is a Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba. Ms. Gunn is an expert on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with over 20 years of experience in researching the alignment of international and domestic law on Indigenous rights. Ms. Gunn addresses the international response to First Nations housing conditions and Canada’s obligations under international law.

Stephen Burnett (27 pages): Mr. Burnett is a professional engineer and Principal at S. Burnett & Associates Limited. Mr. Burnett was retained to discuss the quality of band-owned housing, challenges in accessing funding for band-owned housing, and barriers to obtaining and transporting materials to remote First Nations, for new homes and repairs.

Dr. James Reynolds (63 pages): Dr. Reynolds is a Lawyer, historian, and author on the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples in Canada. Dr. Reynolds addresses the evolution of the Crown’s relationship with First Nations, historical roles of Indian Agents, Crown control of property and housing infrastructure, and changes in that control from the 1970s to the present.

[9] At this leave stage the Plaintiffs submit admissibility is not necessary to be determined on this motion. Rather, the content and scope of the experts’ reports should properly be addressed during summary judgment motion. Any issue of necessity or small amounts of overlap can also be addressed at that time (Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 829 [CCR] at paras 27-28, 31 and 33).

[10] Pursuant to Rule 52.4, in deciding whether to grant leave, the Court shall consider all relevant matters including: the nature of the litigation, its public significance and any need to clarify the law; the number, complexity or technical nature of the issues in dispute; and the likely expense involved in calling the expert witnesses in relation to the amount in dispute in the proceeding.

[11] The Plaintiffs state that access to adequate housing on reserve is a matter of broad public interest since the 119 eligible First Nations and their members are some of the most disadvantaged communities in Canada.

[12] The Plaintiffs state that the Defendant’s approach to on-reserve housing construction, operations and maintenance has changed over time, necessitating examination of the complex and technical policy and operational components.

[13] Lastly, the Plaintiffs are seeking $5 billion in damages. The expense in having the expert reports admitted, and any resulting cross-examinations, have a small impact on the damages sought.

[14] Accordingly, the Plaintiffs submit they have satisfied the Rule 52.4(2) requirements for leave to be granted.

[15] In addition to satisfying the requirements for leave, the Plaintiffs cite the Defendant’s obligation of expedience under Rule 52.5(1), where a party “shall, as early as possible in the proceeding, raise any objection to an opposing party’s proposed expert witness that could disqualify the witness from testifying”. The Plaintiffs claim a denial at this stage would be highly prejudicial given the Defendant received all the reports in December 2023, and have completed their cross-examinations on some of the expert witnesses.

(2) 30 Page Limit

[16] The Plaintiffs seek leave of the Court to file a 149-page memorandum of fact and law for the summary judgment motion, exceeding the 30-page limit set out in FCR Rule 70(4). In short, similar to the submissions above, due to the factual and legal complexity of the matter, the Plaintiffs require additional legal submissions for the Court’s benefit. The Plaintiffs submit that special circumstances exist, and they have demonstrated a specific need (Canada v General Electric Capital Canada Inc., 2010 FCA 92 at para 5(a)-5(b) [General Electric]).

[17] The record before the Court is immense, comprising over 10,000 pages. The Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion alone contains 8,592 pages, including affidavits from 34 fact witnesses (4,824 pages, and 454 pages of reply affidavits – 5,278 pages total), 12 expert witnesses, in addition to two responding affidavits from the Defendant. The cross-examination transcripts of 15 witnesses span over 2019 pages. Relative to the size of the record, the Plaintiffs’ memorandum avoids redundancy, provides only crucial context, and relegates substantial portions of key evidence to brief footnotes.

[18] The Plaintiffs submit the factors set forth in General Electric are met. Special circumstances exist, including the large number of factual and legal issues, the large number of documents and lengthy factual background (Nguesso v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 102 at para 30; Pfizer Canada Inc. v Canada (Minister of Health), 2006 FC 937 at paras 20, 22 [Pfizer]). There are also complex and important issues that exist in this case (Pfizer at para 19; General Electric at para 5(d)).

[19] The nature of the issues involving Indigenous peoples is also unique. In this regard, the Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples was created to address the unique approach to Indigenous litigation. As in Shamattawa First Nation v Canada, 2024 FC 1534 [Shamattawa], another class action involving complex issues regarding First Nations’ access to clean drinking water, Canada had previously consented to an 86-page brief.

[20] The Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice if they were required to reduce the length of their memorandum. It would not be a productive use of the Plaintiffs’ scarce resources to write another version at this stage. It would also jeopardize the Plaintiffs’ ability to present their case effectively (General Electric at para 5(f)).

[21] Additionally, the Court will benefit from a longer Plaintiffs’ memorandum (Pfizer at para 22). The memorandum reflects the understanding and detail that will be required of the Court in deciding the motion for summary judgment.

B. Defendant’s Positions

(1) Expert Reports

[22] CCR sets out the main principles concerning Rule 52.4: There is a high threshold for leave to be granted (at para 14); the motion does not pertain to admissibility and does not engage the R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9 test for admissibility (CCRat para 30-31); and the Rule safeguards against the undue expansion of the number of experts, avoiding duplication and wasted resources (CCRat para 14).

[23] The Stage 1 issue at hand in the present summary judgement motion does not meet the Rule 52.4(2)(b) consideration of the number, complexity or technical nature of the issues in dispute. The Stage 1 issue is intended to determine solely whether a legal duty or obligation exists on the part of Canada. The Plaintiffs fail to articulate how the 12 experts’ evidence relates to actual issue before the Court: the existence of a duty of care; fiduciary duty; or obligations under the Charter or Constitution Act, 1982.

[24] The expert reports are unnecessary, duplicative, and would grant the Plaintiffs strategic advantage (Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research, 2019 FC 1402 at paras 8-9 [Hospira]; CCR at paras 27, 30-31; and Apotex Inc. v Sanofi-Aventis, 2010 FC 1282 at paras 30 and 33). Stage I is not a full trial on liability and damages. As such, a significant amount of the expert evidence is largely irrelevant to the issues before the Court. The evidence offered is thematically and substantively duplicative, beyond permissible levels of overlap (CCR at para 27), amounting to a piling on of evidence for the purpose of strategic advantage (Hospiraat para 9). The Plaintiffs’ request to tender additional expert witnesses fails to consider the judicial economy of the summary judgment motion and is not proportionate to the legal question at hand.

[25] This matter is distinguishable from cases where the Courts have permitted large numbers of expert witnesses to cover several distinct and complex issues (Sam v British Columbia, 2016 BCSC 86; Thompson v Canada, 2023 FC 27). Also, the Defendant’s position in Shamattawa is not applicable to the matter at hand, as Shamattawa did not contain as much duplication as the present matter.

(2) 30 Page Limit

[26] Rule 70(4) leave is granted sparingly and necessitates a demonstration of special circumstances and specific need (General Electric at para 5(a)). The Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the Court will be better equipped to make proper determination on the merits taking into account the following factors: the importance and complexity of the questions raised; procedural fairness to the moving party; and the assessment of counsel (General Electric at para 5).

[27] Importance and complexity alone are insufficient to justify leave (Forestethics Advocacy Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 182 [Forestethics] at para 21).

[28] The Court must “conduct an informed assessment of whether it should grant a sparingly granted exception based on special circumstances that have been demonstrated…” (General Electric at para 5 (b); Forestethics at para 24; Pfizer at para 16-17). The Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with sufficient and particularized information to justify a 149-page memorandum.

[29] The Defendant does not dispute that the issue of inadequate housing on-reserve is an important question. However, this does not serve as the kind of exceptional circumstances to justify leave to exceed 30 pages.

[30] Shamattawa is also distinguishable from the present matter. Shamattawa had greater factual complexity as it dealt with: broader technical variations in water systems; greater variations in First Nations’ individual circumstances; broader and greater intensity of Canada’s engagement in program activities; and broader engagement by third party actors in Canada’s program delivery.

[31] Procedural fairness considerations are a key principle in granting leave to file an extended memorandum, however, the Plaintiffs’ own choices - action design and abundance of evidence – resulted in a memorandum length showing exceptional disregard for the FCR and is not reasonable for respondents to answer. As held by the Court in Forestethicsat para 13-14, the intention of Rule 70 ensures only central and important points are advanced in submissions.

[32] The Plaintiffs claim their lengthy memorandum provides crucial context. The memorandum provides nearly 86 pages of facts alone, disregarding the instructive element of concision, and is at odds with the expeditious nature of summary judgment.

[33] Significant weight should be afforded to legal counsel’s assessment when considering a request to exceed the page limit. The Court must be supplied with sufficient and particularized information that allows an independent evaluation of the complexity of the issues and the necessity of an exception (General Electric at para 5(c)). The Plaintiffs have failed to provide this sufficient and particularized information.

[34] Given the reduced complexity of the present matter as compared to the Shamattawa summary judgment motion, a memorandum of up to 70 pages is sufficient. As the Plaintiffs consent, the Defendant informally requests a corresponding page limit for its own memorandum or, if required, will bring its own motion following the Court’s decision on the Plaintiffs’ motions.

C. Conclusion

[35] The outcome of the two present motions may impact the scope of the summary judgment motion itself. Accordingly, it is important to note principles of summary judgment to provide proper context to the decision at hand.

[36] The purpose of summary judgment is to allow the Court to summarily dispense with actions that ought not proceed to trial because they do not raise a genuine issue to be tried, thereby conserving scarce judicial resources and improving access to justice (Milano Pizza Ltd v 6034799 Canada Inc, 2018 FC 1112 at para 25).

[37] The Supreme Court of Canada has also observed that lengthy pre-trial processes and protracted trials, with accompanying expense and delay, can prevent the fair and just resolution of disputes (Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 24 [Hryniak]). Summary judgment can improve access to justice for litigants who might not otherwise be able to utilize the justice system for resolution of disputes (Hryniak at paras 4 and 23).

[38] There will be no genuine issue for trial if there is no legal basis to the claim or if the presiding judge is provided with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute (Hryniak at para 66). The onus is on a party seeking summary judgment to establish that there is no genuine issue for trial. However, parties responding to motions for summary judgment are also required to put their best foot forward in their response (F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd v S F Concrete Technology Inc, 1999 CanLii 7912 (FC) at paras 12 and 27).

(1) Expert Reports

[39] The Plaintiffs’ motion to file the reports of 12 expert witnesses is granted.

[40] The parties agree, in deciding whether to grant leave pursuant to FCR 52.4, the Court shall consider all relevant matters including: the nature of the litigation, its public significance and any need to clarify the law; the number, complexity or technical nature of the issues in dispute; and the likely expense involved in calling the expert witnesses in relation to the amount in dispute in the proceeding.

[41] A review of the general content of the expert reports set out in paragraph 8 illustrates the complex nature of the litigation. Unlike the present matter, Shamattawa was preceded by the settlement of a virtually identical class action. Therefore, much of the expert evidence in Shamattawa was the same as the settled action. In the present matter there has not been a similar preceding class action nor settlement. As such, the historical context and issues have never been considered by this Court. I am persuaded by the Plaintiffs’ submissions. The complex nature of the legal issues leading to the Stage 1 common question necessitates full consideration of Canada’s historical housing policy development.

[42] Both parties and the Court also acknowledge the public significance of this matter. There has not yet been any judicial guidance on the Stage 1 common issue. Accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the state of the law regarding whether Canada owes a duty to First Nations for on-reserve housing.

[43] As the Plaintiffs have demonstrated, there are a number of complex or technical issues in dispute. In addition to the expert’s evidence concerning Canada’s historical housing policies, the expert reports also highlight the relationship between Canada and First Nations. Both are necessary for determining the Stage 1 common question.

[44] Lastly, the likely expense involved in calling the expert witnesses in relation to the amount in dispute in the proceeding favours the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claim over $5 billion in damages, with only 7 additional witnesses relied upon. Under these circumstances, the Court would benefit from additional evidence.

[45] As the parties acknowledge, and I would like to re-state, granting leave to introduce more than 5 witnesses does not mean the evidence tendered will ultimately be admitted or found relevant. That will be determined at the summary judgment motion.

(2) 30 Page Limit

[46] The Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed the 30-page limit for their memorandum of fact and law is granted in part. Exceptional circumstances exist which have persuaded the Court to allow this sparingly-granted exception to Rule 70(4).

[47] The 30-page limit exists to ensure that the issues are presented to the Court in a concise manner (Pfizer at para 14; Sawridge Band v Canada, 2006 FCA 52 at para 20). The Court must conduct an informed assessment of whether it should grant a sparingly-granted exception based on special circumstances that have been demonstrated to exist with sufficient, particularized information (General Electric at paras 5(b) and (c)).

[48] I am persuaded by the Plaintiffs’ submissions that special circumstances exist and that there is a specific need for a longer memorandum due to the factual and legal complexity of the matter (General Electric at paras 5(a)-5(b)).

[49] For similar reasons as enumerated on the first motion, the fact that the issue of on-reserve housing has never been canvassed by this Court requires a full factual and legal overview. This matter is not a standard action. It is a class action involving at least 119 First Nations across Canada who have brought a novel Stage 1 common question, strongly contested by the Defendant.

[50] An additional special circumstance exists due to the length of expert reports and areas of opinion sought to be introduced, as set out in paragraph 8, above. While the Defendant makes no representations as to its own number of expert witnesses relied upon, nor the number of pages in their expert reports, it may be reasonable to assume the total amount of expert witnesses will comprise a significant total record. The subject areas are diverse, cover a lengthy timeframe, and require a detailed examination of the legal and policy development related to on-reserve housing. It is fair to say the record is exceptionally voluminous. This is almost certainly an understatement.

[51] Four days have been set aside for the summary judgment motion hearing. This suggests substantial time will be required to canvass the facts and issues in the present record.

[52] The Plaintiffs’ memorandum has been filed, served, and is before the Court. On review, it does contain significant background facts and a detailed overview of the law related to the Stage 1 Common Issues for determination. The Plaintiffs state that if they were forced to re-write a shorter memorandum it would cause prejudice at this late stage. However, simply stating a 149-page memorandum has already been written is not sufficient to determine whether the Plaintiffs would not be able to reduce the overall length of its memorandum (Venngo Inc. v Concierge Connection Inc. (Perkopolis), 2016 FCA 209 at para 16).

[53] The Defendant submits it would not object to the Plaintiffs filing a 70-page memorandum on the basis that the Defendant would seek informal leave to file a 70-page memorandum. Although I am persuaded by the Defendant’s submissions, I am not in agreement with the Defendant’s proposed length of the memorandum.

[54] Accordingly, in light of the complicated nature of this class proceeding, which differs in form and content than the authorities cited above, it is my view that the Court will benefit from a memorandum of fact and law from the Plaintiffs exceeding 30 pages. Bearing in mind the consent of the defendant in Shamattawa and the Defendant’s present position, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist. The Court therefore grants leave for the Plaintiffs and Defendant to file a memorandum of fact and law not to exceed 85 pages in length, exclusive of appendices.

IV. Conclusions

[55] The Plaintiffs’ motion to introduce more than 5 expert witness reports is granted. The Plaintiffs’ motion to file a memorandum exceeding 30 pages is granted in part. The Defendant’s informal motion seeking to file a similarly lengthy memorandum, is also granted in part.

[56] The Plaintiffs’ submissions were silent on costs and the Defendant suggested no costs for the motion concerning the expert witnesses and was silent on the motion for the length of the memorandum. Costs will not be ordered.

ORDER in T-1207-23

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The Plaintiffs’ motion to introduce more than 5 expert witness reports is granted. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file 12 expert reports.
2. The Plaintiffs’ motion to increase the length of their memorandum of fact and law is granted in part. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendant are granted leave to file memorandum of fact and law not to exceed 85 pages in length, exclusive of appendices.
3. The Plaintiffs are granted three weeks to file their memorandum. If they are unable to meet this timeframe or if any of the parties require an amendment to any filing deadlines, they shall seek a case management conference before the Case Management Judge.
4. There is no order as to costs.

"Paul Favel"

Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

T-1207-23

STYLE OF CAUSE:

ST. THERESA POINT FIRST NATION AND, CHIEF ELVIN FLETT ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF, ALL MEMBERS OF ST. THERESA POINT FIRST NATION AND SANDY LAKE, FIRST NATION AND CHIEF DELORES KAKEGAMIC ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF SANDY LAKE FIRST NATION v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING:

motion in writing

ORDER AND REASONS:

FAVEL J.

DATED:

February 28, 2025

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

H. Michael Rosenberg Deborah Templer Stephanie Willsey Alana Robert Rachel Chan Bryce Edwards Kevin Hille Darian Baskatawang Yeseul Grace Shin

For The PLAINTIFFS (MOVING PARTIES)

Bruce Hughson Scott Farlinger Lauri Miller Cary Clark willemien kruger julian nahachewsky WILLIAM KUCHAPSKI

For The defendant (RESPONDING PARTY)

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP TORONTO, ON OLTHUIS KLEER TOWNSHEND LLP TORONTO, ON

For The plaintiffs (MOVING PARTIES)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA WINNIPEG, MB

For The DEFENDANT (RESPONDING PARTY)