Samson Cree Nation ordered to disclose settlement-member records in class action

Samson Cree Nation must broaden its document disclosure in an existing class action to include relevant records about members who signed settlement agreements, an Alberta judge has ruled.

Justice T.G. Rothwell ordered a further and better affidavit of records by January 31, 2027, in Bruno v Samson Cree Nation, 2026 ABKB 740, issued October 23, 2026, by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. He also awarded plaintiff Bonnie Lee Bruno $1,800 in ordinary application costs.

The court rejected Samson’s position that members it considered fully paid fell outside the class for disclosure purposes. But it refused Bruno’s request for a penalty under rule 5.12, declining to find abuse of process or intentional delay at this stage.

A disclosure dispute in an already-certified action

The lawsuit seeks damages over withheld per capita distributions and other payments. Bruno and her mother regained status under the Indian Act and became Samson members in June 1987 following amendments commonly known as Bill C-31. Those amendments included restoring status to women who had lost it through marriage to a non-status person.

The reasons describe Samson’s opposition at the time to Canada unilaterally adding people to its membership list. Samson declined to make payments to some people added by Canada, and later entered different types of agreements with members. Some received prospective and retroactive payments; others began receiving payments without retroactive compensation; some of those individuals signed agreements that, on their face, waived that entitlement.

The present ruling did not certify a new class or decide whether those agreements are valid. It addressed what records must be disclosed in the action already certified in 2020 and considered on appeal in 2021.

The class definition covers people recorded on the Samson Band List at any time on or after June 29, 1987, from whom Samson withheld per capita distributions and Special Pays after their addition to the list and up to August 31, 2020. It also includes the personal representatives of deceased class members.

Past withholding, not just a current unpaid balance

Samson argued that people who had settled and been paid were outside the definition. It warned that Bruno’s reading could require reviewing 33 years of payments and producing records about matters such as late-mailed cheques.

Bruno said the definition and earlier appeal already resolved the issue. She sought relevant records about potential class members whose payments had been withheld, not late cheques or minor payment-accounting discrepancies.

Rothwell found that the definition turns on whether payments were withheld during the relevant period, not simply whether money remains outstanding. A person might ultimately have no claim or be unable to prove damages after receiving full payment, but that did not let Samson narrow disclosure based on its assessment of the strength of that person’s case.

Document production helps both sides assess their claims and defences. Whether an individual class member succeeds is for trial or a summary judgment or dismissal application, the judge explained. Membership in the class also does not necessarily depend on having joined Samson because of Bill C-31, although those amendments gave rise to the litigation.

Samson estimated that it had produced records concerning approximately 180 people. Its own earlier evidence described settlement agreements with approximately 395 people, and Rothwell found that the evidence established relevant records concerning more people than the disclosure covered. Those figures were evidence about the scope of records, not a final class size or a determination of how many people are owed compensation.

The new affidavit must therefore include relevant and material records concerning members who executed settlement agreements. The order does not require the late-cheque investigation Samson feared.

Ordinary costs, but no rule 5.12 penalty

Bruno sought a disclosure penalty, arguing that Samson had delayed the proceeding and was attempting to relitigate matters resolved on appeal. Samson responded that it had filed its affidavit on time and that the disagreement concerned the scope of disclosure.

Rothwell accepted that rule 5.12 can extend to an affidavit filed on time but deficient in content. Even so, he did not consider Samson’s interpretation so untenable that it amounted to abuse of process, and he was not satisfied that its conduct constituted intentional delay at this stage.

The judge put Samson on notice that further delays could support another rule 5.12 application. For this application, Bruno’s principal success was obtaining broader disclosure, so she received $1,800 in costs despite losing the penalty request. Samson must file the further and better affidavit by January 31, 2027.