Anusha Aruliah

Two federal inmates serving indeterminate sentences applied for reclassification from medium- to minimum-security facilities.

Despite recommendations from their case management teams and wardens, administrative decision-makers denied the reclassifications.

The appellants sought habeas corpus ad subjiciendum with certiorari in aid, challenging the denials as unlawful deprivations of their residual liberty.

The majority held that a decision to deny a lower security reclassification constitutes a deprivation of liberty reviewable by way of habeas corpus, as it has the qualitative effect of restricting liberty without requiring proof of a change in status quo or a pre-existing legal entitlement to the less restrictive state.

The dissent maintained that habeas corpus is only available where an inmate has acquired a legal entitlement to the lower security classification, consistent with the framework in Dumas.

As both appellants had been reclassified and transferred by the time the appeal was heard, the Court allowed the appeal on the moot legal question of public importance.

The appellants, members of the Blood Tribe, appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision holding that their treaty land entitlement (TLE) claim under Treaty No. 7 was statute-barred under Alberta's six-year limitation period.

The Blood Tribe argued that no actionable cause of action for breach of treaty rights existed until s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force.

The Supreme Court held that s. 35(1) did not create a cause of action for breach of treaty rights — treaty rights flow from the treaty itself and were enforceable at common law from the date of execution.

Accordingly, the TLE claim was statute-barred.

However, the Court exercised its discretion to grant declaratory relief, finding that the Crown's dishonourable breach of Treaty No. 7 warranted a declaration to promote reconciliation, identify the Crown's misconduct, and assist in restoring the nation-to-nation relationship.

A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.

The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.

This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in ongoing litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The endorsement finalizes the content of a notice for intervention motions, adjusts the timetable for cross-examinations and factum deliveries, resolves confidentiality concerns regarding expert reports appended to motion materials, and confirms the venue for intervention motion hearings.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.

The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.

The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.

A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.

The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.

The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.

Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.

In a long-running Indigenous land claim concerning alleged Crown breaches of fiduciary and treaty obligations arising from the Haldimand Proclamation and Simcoe Patent, the court issued a case conference endorsement setting the process for forthcoming intervention motions.

The court declined to make case conferences public, but directed broader notice to affected Haudenosaunee communities and supported creation of a website containing publicly filed materials.

The court rejected, at this stage, informal in situ proceedings to gather process submissions or appointment of an amicus curiae, while indicating the intervention motions should be heard in person on the lands at issue if feasible, failing which in Brantford.

A timetable was fixed to move the intervention motions forward efficiently while allowing additional interested groups time to participate.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion to be added as a party and appointed as a representative of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in an action commenced by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against Canada and Ontario.

Following case conferences, the parties and HDI consented to a timetable for the motion and terms for providing notice to potentially interested non-parties.

The court issued an order on consent setting out the timetable and the specific notice requirements.

In a case management conference, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the Discovery Timetable to allow more time to deliver written questions arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 additional documents by the defendant.

The defendants did not dispute the need for additional time but questioned the structure of the questioning stages.

The court granted the amendment, extending the deadlines for the delivery of follow-up written questions and answers, and maintained the remainder of the timetable.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

The 12th Case Management Conference addressed the timetable for expert reports and pleading amendments in a complex Indigenous litigation.

The Plaintiff sought a simultaneous exchange of expert reports, arguing for procedural reciprocity and efficiency.

The Defendants advocated for a sequential timetable, asserting it would allow them to better understand and respond to the Plaintiff's case, aligning with common practice in similar complex litigation.

The court adopted the Defendants' sequential timetable for expert reports, finding no basis to deviate from established practice in complex land claims.

The court also granted leave for the Plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, with the formal filing deferred due to COVID-19 court closures.

The 11th Case Management Conference addressed the trial process and timetable for a complex action involving historic evidence.

The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial but disagreed on the degree of bifurcation.

The plaintiff proposed a four-phase structure (two liability, two remedies/crossclaims), while the defendants proposed a two-phase structure (all liability in Phase 1, all remedies/crossclaims in Phase 2).

The court adopted the two-phase structure, finding it more efficient and less prone to inconsistencies, while reserving the right for parties to seek further refinement at the pre-trial stage.

A detailed timetable for pleadings, discovery, and documentary production was also established to keep the action on track for a 2022 trial.