Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 143
B. Preliminary Issues
[567] Insofar as some of the defences raised by the Defendant have the potential to defeat the
claims of LPL, relative to the issues of assignment and limitations, and of both Plaintiffs, in respect
of the arguments about the availability of judicial review, these matters will be addressed first.
[568] As noted in the procedural history, this action was commenced initially only in the name of
SYFC. LPL became a party pursuant to the Order of the Federal Court of Appeal made on January
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
27, 2006. In its Reasons for Judgment, the Court of Appeal commented on the necessity for LPL to
be a party, in the event that a purported assignment of its rights of action to SYFC could not be
established. In this regard, I refer to the following passage from the decision of the Federal Court of
Appeal at paras. 28 to 30 as follows:
[28] These considerations are irrelevant. What was before the
Motions Judge was not whether LPL effectively assigned its rights to
the appellant, but whether, in the circumstances, it was necessary to
allow the joining of LPL as a plaintiff in order to permit a proper
determination of the issues raised by the pleadings. In my view, the
answer to that question can only be in the affirmative.
[29] The position asserted by the appellant and LPL appears
clearly in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the proposed second Amended
Statement of Claim, which I have already reproduced. The appellant
and LPL take the position that LPL's rights of action against the
respondent have been assigned to the appellant. If that contention is
right, then, should there be liability on the part of the respondent, the
appellant may be entitled to obtain the remedies which it seeks.
However, should the assignment not be effective, then full recovery
against the respondent will not be possible unless LPL is joined as a
party.
[30] Consequently, in these circumstances, contrary to the
position taken by the respondent, I do not see that on its motion to
add LPL as a plaintiff, the appellant need go further than allege the