Brian John Gover

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 applicants sought court review of legal fees claimed by six lawyers (the Legal Team) who represented the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund in litigation to enforce the Crown's obligations under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

The Legal Team claimed $510 million as a 5% contingent success fee on a $10 billion settlement.

The court found the Partial Contingency Fee Agreement was neither fair when signed nor reasonable at the time of hearing.

The court determined the Legal Team acted in conflict of interest when advising clients on their own fees and failed to ensure clients received independent legal advice.

The court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the Legal Team's services at approximately $40 million (double their billable fees of $23 million plus $6.5 million in disbursements already paid), rejecting the $510 million claim as champertous and disproportionate to the settlement amount.

The applicants brought preliminary objections to the admissibility of two pieces of evidence in an application proceeding concerning contingent fee recognition.

The respondent law firm and lawyers sought recognition of contingent fees claimed under a Partial Contingency Agreement dated June 17, 2011.

The court ruled on the admissibility of an expert report from a former Federal Court judge and a third affidavit from one of the respondent lawyers.

The court found that expert evidence on the complexity of the case, risks involved, and results achieved was not necessary, as these matters were within the experience and knowledge of the court and were adequately addressed through extensive evidence and comprehensive legal submissions.

The court also found the expert lacked the requisite qualifications to opine on the specific topics.

The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the third affidavit pending further consideration of its relevance.

The applicants sought an assessment of a $510 million partial contingency fee paid to the lawyer respondents by the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund (RHTLF) and a determination of whether the $10 billion settlement proceeds were assets of the RHTLF Trust.

The court directed an assessment of the legal fees under the Solicitors Act, finding that the First Nations were liable to pay the bills and that special circumstances warranted assessment.

The court also confirmed that the settlement proceeds are assets of the Trust.

The appellant, Hummel Properties Inc., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its application to quash interim control by-laws enacted by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The by-laws prohibited the subdivision of land, including condominium creation, and were challenged on grounds of illegality (not relating to "land use" under the Planning Act, infringing s. 38(7) by applying a second interim control by-law, and illegal process) and bad faith.

The Court of Appeal found that the by-laws were illegal because they purported to control land division, not land use, and violated s. 38(7) by applying a second interim control by-law to the same land.

The court also found errors in the application judge's assessment of the process and bad faith.

The appeal was allowed, the by-laws quashed, and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for a trial on damages for negligent misrepresentation and misfeasance in public office.

Batchewana First Nation sought to be joined as a necessary party plaintiff or, alternatively, for leave to intervene as an added party plaintiff in the Robinson Superior Treaty action, which concerns claims for augmented annuities.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Batchewana, a beneficiary of the Robinson Huron Treaty, was not a necessary party to the Superior action, as its claim for augmented annuities based on "just claims" to lands within the Superior Territory was inconsistent with its prior position in the Huron action and did not directly relate to the Superior Treaty's interpretation or compensation.

The court also found that Batchewana did not meet the criteria for intervention and that its proposed intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the complex, multi-stage litigation.

The Auditor General of Ontario sought declarations that it had the authority under the Auditor General Act to compel grant recipients, specifically Laurentian University, to provide information and records subject to solicitor-client, litigation, or settlement privilege for audit purposes.

Laurentian University argued that the Act did not contain the clear and unambiguous language required to abrogate such fundamental privileges.

The court dismissed the Auditor General's application, holding that sections 10 and 27.1 of the Auditor General Act did not explicitly or unambiguously confer the power to compel disclosure of privileged information, and that privilege cannot be abrogated by inference.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

A pharmacist challenged the Ontario College of Pharmacists' jurisdiction to prosecute discipline charges after the College failed to comply with mandatory statutory timelines for processing a written complaint under section 25 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead, the College accepted the complainant's withdrawal and proceeded with a registrar-initiated investigation under section 75.

The Divisional Court quashed the charges, finding the College lost jurisdiction through non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that written complaints may be withdrawn when the College agrees and the matter proceeds through another statutory process with full procedural safeguards.

The court balanced the public interest in regulating the profession against the accused member's fair hearing rights, finding no procedural unfairness or prejudice to the respondent.

Following conviction on charges of Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer, the defendant, a former Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendant had directed the wiping of computer hard drives in the Office of the Premier to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and anticipated legislative committee production orders regarding the gas plant controversy.

The court found the offence struck at the heart of democratic accountability and transparency, warranting incarceration despite the defendant's otherwise exemplary character and community contributions.

David Livingston, Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, and Laura Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Strategy, were charged with Breach of Trust by a Public Official, Commit Mischief to Data, and Unauthorized Use of a Computer.

The Crown abandoned the Breach of Trust charge.

The defendants were accused of directing the wiping of twenty computers in the Office of the Premier during the transition from Premier McGuinty to Premier Wynne in early 2013, allegedly to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and potential Legislative Standing Committee Production Orders related to the controversial cancellation and relocation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

The Crown alleged the defendants obtained administrative rights through deception and hired an outside IT consultant to indiscriminately wipe hard drives.

The defendants claimed they sought only to delete personal information and Liberal Party documents from departing staff computers.

Justice Lipson found Livingston guilty on both remaining counts (Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer) but acquitted Miller due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge of Livingston's deceptive means in obtaining administrative rights.

A helicopter operated by an air ambulance service crashed shortly after takeoff from Moosonee, Ontario on May 31, 2013, killing four crew members.

The Crown charged the operator with six counts under the Canada Labour Code, alleging failure to ensure employee safety.

At trial, three counts remained: two alleging failure to provide pilots with means to maintain visual reference while operating at night (counts 3 and 4), and one alleging failure to provide adequate supervision by eliminating the Base Manager position (count 10).

The Crown argued that night vision goggles should have been provided.

The court found that while the crash was caused by controlled flight into terrain, the defendant exercised due diligence and complied with all regulatory requirements.

All three counts were dismissed.

The defendants, David Livingston and Laura Miller, pleaded not guilty to charges of breach of trust by a public official, mischief to data, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown withdrew the breach of trust count at the close of its case.

The defendants brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

The court found that while the Crown failed to establish that actual data was destroyed, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants attempted to commit mischief to data without legal justification or colour of right.

The motion was allowed in part on the mischief to data count, which was reduced to attempt to commit mischief to data.

The motion was dismissed on the unauthorized use of a computer count.

The Crown sought to qualify Robert Gagnon, a retired OPP officer, as an expert in computer systems operation and forensic recovery of computer data.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that Gagnon's extensive involvement in the police investigation and his expressed bias regarding the defendants' guilt disqualified him from providing independent and impartial expert evidence.

The court excluded Gagnon's evidence, finding that he had conflated the roles of expert and investigator, participated extensively in investigative strategy and team meetings, and demonstrated lack of independence and impartiality through his communications recommending charges and providing strategic legal advice to investigators.

The defendant corporation brought a motion to quash counts 10 and 11 of an information charging it with offences under the Canada Labour Code.

The defendant argued the counts were defective because they failed to specify which prescribed regulations had been breached, contrary to the principles established in R v Wis Developments.

The Crown sought to amend the counts to allege breaches of section 124 rather than section 125 of the Act.

The court found the counts were fatally deficient in failing to identify the specific regulations allegedly breached, but permitted amendment to reframe the charges under section 124 as a single statutory duty to ensure employee health and safety, rather than specific regulatory violations.

The defendants brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiff's counsel, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP ("Gowlings"), from further representing the plaintiff.

The defendants argued that Gowlings possessed confidential information obtained during failed negotiations with four dissident partners (now associated with the defendants) and that Gowlings partners were likely material witnesses.

The court found that Gowlings held confidential information relevant to the claims, imparted under a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and that there was a risk of misuse.

Given the lack of an immediate and effective ethical wall, and the early stage of litigation, the court granted the motion, disqualifying Gowlings.

The potential for Gowlings partners to be witnesses was considered an additional factor supporting disqualification.