Aaron Detlor

Hydro One brought a motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the completion of the Niagara Reinforcement Project (NRP).

The defendants, asserting indigenous rights and jurisdiction, had blocked access to the construction site.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a strong prima facie case of trespass, irreparable harm due to potential financial losses and safety risks, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court also held that as a private entity, Hydro One owed no duty to consult.

The injunction was granted.

The court issued supplementary reasons after dismissing an application for leave to appeal a costs order.

The moving party estate filed a reply factum after the initial decision was released, pursuant to an extension agreement between counsel that was not brought to the court's attention.

The court reviewed the reply factum but found it did not address new issues raised in the responding factum, but rather repeated previous arguments regarding the Indian Act and on-reserve assets.

The denial of leave to appeal was confirmed.

The moving party estate sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order dismissing its request to use off-reserve property to satisfy a $40,000 costs award in favour of the responding party wife.

The underlying family law dispute involved claims for spousal support and equalization against the deceased husband's estate, which included both on-reserve and off-reserve property.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that enforcement issues should follow, rather than precede, a determination of entitlement on the merits.

The Crown breached its fiduciary duty in 1886 by making an improvident sale of the appellant's timber rights.

The trial judge valued the timber rights at $31,600 and awarded simple interest adjusted for inflation, denying the appellant's claim for equitable compensation including compound interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the valuation but allowed the appeal on compensation, finding that the trial judge erred in failing to compensate the appellant in equity for its lost opportunity to have the funds invested.

The Court held that an award of equitable compensation including compound interest is not barred by the Crown's historic immunity from paying interest, and ordered a new hearing to determine the appropriate compensation.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the challenge to the motion judge's jurisdiction had been abandoned for the purpose of the motion before her.

The Court also noted that the motion judge's order had no precedential value on the question of jurisdiction.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondents.