Abigail Martinez

Democracy Watch filed two applications for judicial review of decisions by the Lobbying Commissioner concerning whether two lobbyists breached the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

The Attorney General moved to strike the applications on the basis that they were bereft of any chance of success and that Democracy Watch lacked standing.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the reviewability of the Lobbying Commissioner's reports was a justiciable issue.

The Court granted Democracy Watch public interest standing but struck portions of the applications that attempted to re-litigate previously decided issues regarding alleged bias in the Lobbying Commissioner's appointment.

The Pikangikum First Nation appealed the dismissal of its claim for misfeasance in public office against the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The First Nation alleged the Minister unlawfully withheld infrastructure funding to force the withdrawal of an application for judicial review regarding the imposition of third-party management.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the Minister's actions were not motivated by an improper purpose or vindictive desire to harm, but were a reasonable response to the ongoing dispute and the need to ensure proper management of public funds.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

The application judge had declined jurisdiction in favour of a judicial review application before the Federal Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in May v. Ferndale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by its recent decision in R. v. Graham, which established that the parole review process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act constitutes a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for review, thus falling within the exception to the Superior Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction.

A costs endorsement following prior proceedings between a self-represented plaintiff and multiple defendants including federal officials and the Attorney General of Canada.

The parties consented to the disposition of costs.

The court fixed costs in favour of the defendants in a nominal amount payable by the plaintiff forthwith.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a negligence action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by correctional authorities in relation to the murder of her son while he was incarcerated, arguing that the claim was only discovered after a coroner’s inquest and report revealed additional information about officer misconduct and possible obstruction of the police investigation.

The court held that the claim was discovered when the plaintiff received the Board of Investigation report in 2005, which identified failures by correctional officers to follow institutional policies and procedures.

Later information from the inquest and coroner’s report merely provided further evidence supporting an already discoverable claim.

There was no evidence of fraudulent concealment that would suspend the limitation period.

The action commenced in 2010 was therefore outside the two‑year limitation period.