Alexander DeParde

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of appeals by the Attorney General of Ontario, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, Alberta Lemon, and the Estate of Barbara Twining, and the allowance of the cross-appeal by the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.

The Court orders the Town and the Families to pay costs to the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Town to pay costs to Canada, finding the amounts sought reasonable in light of the complexity and significance of the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that approximately 1.4 miles of coastline (the Disputed Beach) forms part of the Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29 under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The trial judge found that the Crown breached its fiduciary duty and acted dishonourably when a surveyor improperly excluded the beach from the reserve boundaries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of treaty interpretation principles or her assessment of the historical record.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to deny the bona fide purchaser for value defence to private landowners, prioritizing the First Nation's constitutionally protected treaty rights.

A cross-appeal by Canada regarding the allocation of pre-Confederation liability was allowed and referred to the next phase of the trial.

During pre-trial examinations in an Indigenous land claim, the plaintiff cross-examined the Crown's expert historian.

The Crown and Ontario objected to several questions, arguing they exceeded the expert's scope of expertise regarding pre-confederation Ontario land systems and strayed into Crown-Indigenous relations.

The court ruled on six objections, allowing questions that sought historical context for documents raised in chief, but sustaining objections to questions seeking opinions on matters outside the expert's specific research, such as the Indigenous perspective on the Crown's protective role.

The applicant target company sought specific performance of a share purchase agreement after the respondent purchaser refused to close, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purchaser alleged breaches of the Material Adverse Effect (MAE), ordinary course, amortization event, and access to information covenants.

The court found that while the pandemic threatened earnings, it fell within the MAE's emergency carveout and did not disproportionately affect the target.

The target's pandemic responses, including branch access changes and accounting adjustments, were within the ordinary course of business for an economic downturn.

The court ordered specific performance of the agreement.

The appellant purchased land from the respondent, agreeing to develop it for retail use.

The agreement included an indemnity clause for community cost-sharing agreements.

The appellant later obtained a zoning amendment for residential development, triggering a $2.8 million fee for school lands, and sought indemnity from the respondent.

The application judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant breached its obligation to develop the land for retail use and could not profit from its own breach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the contract.

The plaintiffs brought motions for approval of a settlement, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honoraria in two class actions concerning defective Takata airbags installed in Mazda, Subaru, and Toyota vehicles.

The settlement provides for an outreach program, out-of-pocket expenses reimbursement, and a customer support program.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of up to $5,850,000 and an honorarium of up to $19,167 to be split among the representative plaintiffs.