3 total
Motion to intervene in representative action granted to included First Nation but denied to excluded collectives.
Several Indigenous groups brought motions to intervene in a Rule 12.08 representation motion concerning an Aboriginal title claim to lands along the Ottawa River.
The court granted leave to intervene to the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, finding they had a direct interest as part of the collective the plaintiffs seek to represent.
The court dismissed the motion by the Nine Algonquin Collectives, concluding they did not meet the criteria for intervention under Rule 13.01, as they are not part of the proposed collective and their participation would unduly delay the proceeding.
Representative Aboriginal title action requires prior authorization under Rule 12.08.
The defendants brought a motion seeking a direction that the plaintiffs obtain court authorization under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before continuing a representative action asserting Aboriginal title and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The action sought declarations concerning Aboriginal title to federally held lands along the Ottawa River, including lands in the national capital region.
The plaintiffs argued that a representation motion should not be required in Aboriginal title litigation and that imposing such a requirement would undermine reconciliation and access to justice.
The court held that Rule 12.08 applies to representative proceedings advancing s. 35 claims and requires prior judicial authorization regardless of the substantive nature of the claim.
The plaintiffs were directed to bring a Rule 12.08 motion to seek authorization to proceed as representatives of the proposed collective.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing an inmate's medical negligence and Charter claims due to a complete lack of expert evidence.
The court considered two motions for summary judgment in a civil action brought by William Stoddart, a former inmate, against Dr. Diana Silver Wyatt and various Crown defendants.
Stoddart alleged assault and professional negligence against Dr. Wyatt, and negligence, assault, and breach of Charter rights against the Crown defendants, arising from the discontinuation of his prescription for gabapentin following a change in the Correctional Service of Canada’s drug formulary.
The court found that the only evidence on the standard of care was from the defendants, and Stoddart failed to provide any expert evidence in support of his claims.
The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment, dismissing all of Stoddart’s claims.
