Alan Pratt

In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.

The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.

Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.

The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.

The Algonquins appealed a motion judge's decision to strike most of their claims against Ontario and the Métis Nation of Ontario regarding harvesting rights.

The core issue was Ontario's duty to consult and accommodate Algonquin interests before recognizing Métis communities and extending unlimited harvesting rights, which allegedly impacted Algonquin resources.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in striking claims for declaratory relief based on standing and in compelling the Algonquins to pursue judicial review instead of an action.

The court emphasized a generous approach to pleadings in Indigenous cases and that the duty to consult provides standing for consequential relief.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating most of the Algonquins' claims, while the cross-appeals by Ontario and the Métis Nation were dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 18, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $4,625.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint Chief Kirby Whiteduck to represent the 'Algonquins' in an action challenging Ontario's decision to grant harvesting rights to two Métis communities in a settlement area currently under treaty negotiation.

The Métis Nation opposed the motion, arguing the class was insufficiently defined and the proposed representative lacked authority.

The court found that the class of collective rights holders was sufficiently defined, the claim was collective in nature, and the balance of convenience favoured appointing the proposed representative.

The motion was granted.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an application to determine which Indian Bands were the beneficial owners of the Agency One Reserve, created in 1875 pursuant to Treaty 3.

The applications judge found that the reserve was set apart solely for the use and benefit of the Rainy Lake Bands, based on historical evidence including a 1908 surrender of land.

The Rainy River Bands appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's decision on entitlement, finding it supported by the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal regarding costs, ordering the Crown to pay the bands' costs of the application on a substantial-indemnity basis due to its fiduciary role and its responsibility for the historical uncertainty.

Appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing a municipal restructuring commission’s final proposal amalgamating several municipalities and annexing unorganized territory.

The Court of Appeal held that judicial review of a restructuring commission performing a political and legislative function is narrowly confined to whether the commission acted according to law, and does not permit the court to revisit the merits of restructuring policy.

The Divisional Court erred in finding illegality, inadequate consultation with First Nations as a free-standing jurisdictional defect, failure to apply the former OMB 'three filters' test, an impermissible 'tax grab', and bias.

The cross-appeal seeking a declaration under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 was dismissed without prejudice because the record was inadequate for determination of the constitutional issue.

Several Indigenous moving parties sought leave to intervene in multiple appeals concerning Aboriginal rights and title issues.

The court held that three of the moving parties had a sufficient interest in the outcome and could usefully add to the issues, and granted intervention on strict conditions, including that the existing record would stand and a single factum be delivered.

A separate moving party seeking intervention primarily to challenge portions of Ontario's factum was refused leave because the court was not persuaded it would add anything materially new to the arguments already to be made by existing parties.

No costs were ordered.