Allan Donovan

The appellant, a former resident of an Indian Residential School, brought a civil action alleging he was sexually assaulted by a supervisor decades earlier.

The trial judge found the appellant credible despite inconsistencies in his testimony and concluded the assaults occurred.

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, holding that the trial judge failed to apply a standard of proof commensurate with the serious nature of the allegations.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's decision, definitively ruling that there is only one standard of proof in civil cases: proof on a balance of probabilities.

The Court rejected the notion of a shifting standard based on the gravity of the allegations and clarified that corroboration is not legally required in civil sexual assault claims.

The applicant Indian bands brought motions to vacate a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegation stemmed from the fact that the judge who authored the reasons had been the federal Associate Deputy Minister of Justice over 15 years prior, during the early stages of the litigation.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding that the judge's prior involvement was limited to a supervisory and administrative role, he had no recollection of the file, and a reasonable, right-minded person would not apprehend bias given the passage of time and the nature of his involvement.

Two Indian bands, the Wewaykum (Campbell River) and Wewaikai (Cape Mudge), claimed each other's reserve lands, alleging the federal Crown breached its fiduciary duty during the reserve creation process in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Both bands sought declarations and equitable compensation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown fulfilled its fiduciary obligations by acting with loyalty, good faith, and ordinary prudence.

The Court found that both bands had historically acknowledged the other's entitlement to their respective reserves, making equitable relief inappropriate due to laches and acquiescence.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the bands' claims were statute-barred by the applicable limitation periods.