Lutsel K'e Dene make their arguments in the case against Ron Barlas

Lawyers for Łutsel K'e Dene First Nation (LKDFN) will wrap up their case on Friday against Ron Barlas, the man alleged to have funneled close to $12 million dollars of money earned by the First Nation's economic arm into his own pockets.

The First Nation first set out its case against Barlas in April of last year, arguing that the suspended CEO and director of Denesoline Corporation should be removed from his role based on evidence that he repeatedly acted against the interests of the company for years.

LKDFN lawyers began laying out their arguments against Barlas in front of N.W.T. Supreme Court Judge Karan Shaner on Wednesday in Yellowknife.

They argued that evidence compiled over the last year proves that Barlas's actions during his time as CEO constitute "the most extreme end of the spectrum of corporate malfeasance."

They allege Barlas used Denesoline money to buy a house for himself, lied to the company's board of directors, and funnelled $11.5 million from Denesoline contracts to a company owned by his wife.

None of the allegations against Barlas have been proven in court.

Barlas has said that all financial concerns that have been highlighted in the First Nation's lawsuit against him were approved by the board of directors. 

As a remedy, the First Nation is asking the court to permanently remove Barlas from his roles of CEO and director of LKDFN companies. He was temporarily suspended as Denesoline CEO by a judge last year as a precautionary measure, but he still holds the position.

They are also asking the court to put three properties Barlas allegedly bought with Denesoline's money in trust, and require Barlas to pay damages to LKDFN covering all the money they say he took from Denesoline Corporation.

Trial or no trial

LKDFN lawyer Matthew Sammon argued fiercely in court against efforts by Barlas's lawyers to send the case to trial, saying that a trial is not necessary and calling the suggestion an "attempt by the Barlas respondents to add delay." 

"This is not a hard case," he told the court, arguing that because so much of the evidence in the case comes from emails and financial documents, rather than witnesses, there is no need to get people up on the stand.

He also said that much of the evidence against Barlas comes from things he himself admitted, either during cross examination or in his affidavits.

Given those facts, a trial would create undue financial hardship for the First Nation, he argued. 

The lawyers spent the rest of the day presenting legal arguments related to their case and going over the evidence against Barlas.

On Friday, the lawyers will finish going through the evidence against Barlas and wrap up their case.

Barlas' lawyers will present their arguments starting on April 2.