Cameron R. B. Fiske

A self-represented plaintiff sought damages for financial losses allegedly caused by uncertainty regarding his corporation's land ownership due to an unresolved Indigenous land claim by Six Nations against Canada and Ontario.

The defendants brought cross-motions to strike the claim.

The court dismissed the action on multiple grounds: the proceeding was a nullity against Ontario due to failure to provide the mandatory 60-day notice required by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019; the claim was plainly and obviously statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002; and the plaintiff failed to establish a cognizable cause of action in negligence or breach of fiduciary duty against either defendant.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to add corporate plaintiffs.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Indigenous land claims.

The court provided directions regarding preparatory materials for upcoming out-of-court expert examinations, including the appointment of a hybrid commissioner and deadlines for expert report summaries and legal arguments.

The court also addressed a dispute regarding the scope of cross-examination of an expert witness, directing the parties to narrow issues concerning adversity of interest before seeking further judicial determination.

Finally, the court confirmed the appointment of a pre-trial judge and scheduled the next case conference.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses procedural issues in a complex litigation, specifically disputes regarding the admissibility of expert reports and estimates of trial length.

The court noted progress in resolving these issues and scheduled a further case conference to revisit them and receive an update on an expert witness's health.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation.

It sets a timetable for a forthcoming motion by the Attorney General of Canada regarding the taking of evidence from certain witnesses before trial.

The court also noted Ontario's expected late delivery of expert reports, discussed the parties' differing estimates for trial length and scheduled a follow-up conference, and provided guidance on addressing concerns about trial presentation software (CaseLines).

The Missanabie Cree First Nation appealed a trial decision that determined the "crystallization date" for calculating their Treaty No. 9 reserve land entitlement was 1906, the year they adhered to the Treaty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly interpreted the Treaty's reserve clause and the common intention of the parties, and properly distinguished other treaty cases.

The court also addressed ancillary issues, admitting fresh evidence of a settlement between Canada and MCFN, lifting a sealing order on the settlement, and dismissing Canada's abuse of process motion to dismiss the appeal against it.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation, including the taking of expert evidence before trial, Canada's missed deadline for an expert report, the appointment of pre-trial and trial judges, the use of trial presentation software, and Ontario's Crown immunity defence.

The court scheduled a motion for expert evidence and provided directions for parties to prepare a trial timetable and discuss judicial assistance.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion seeking leave to examine three expert witnesses before trial.

The parties largely resolved the motion, leaving the court to adjudicate the quantum of interim costs payable by Canada to the plaintiff (Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians) and the costs of the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in interim costs to indemnify for financial prejudice due to duplicated work and early incurred expenses from the pre-trial examinations.

The court declined to award costs for the motion itself, finding that all parties had compromised their positions and no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award.

This appeal concerned an option agreement granting a right of first refusal for land.

The appellant, 864773 Ontario Inc., purported to exercise its option to purchase the property for $10 million, arguing it was a "like amount" to a third-party offer of $15.3 million, considering alleged development costs.

The application judge found the offer invalid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming that the $10 million offer was not a "like amount" to the $15.3 million offer, particularly in the absence of expert evidence to support the claimed adjustments for development costs.

The court also allowed the respondents' cross-appeal to vary the judgment language to facilitate the sale to the third party.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Liliana Siggillino's action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action concerned a dispute over the 2008 transfer of a family farm, where Liliana alleged misrepresentation regarding its value.

The central issue was when Liliana discovered her claim, specifically when she first read a 2008 property valuation report.

The court found Liliana's evidence regarding the discovery date to be contradictory and not credible, preferring her earlier statements and a 2013 letter indicating she read the report in 2008.

The court also found that a reasonable person in her circumstances ought to have known of the claim by July 30, 2008, through reasonable diligence.

Consequently, Liliana's action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out their negligence claim against the Toronto Police Services Board without leave to amend.

The appellants alleged the police owed them a duty of care in investigating a crime affecting their family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the precedent in Wellington v. Ontario established that police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime and their families in relation to police investigations.

The court rejected the appellants' arguments that their case was distinguishable based on their lack of certain victim remedies or their assistance to police in the investigation.

The plaintiff, Zheng Lou, brought a two-branched motion: (1) for court approval of a settlement reached with defendant Baomin Yi, and (2) to convert her individual action against London Life Insurance Company into a class action.

The court dismissed the motion for settlement approval, finding no jurisdiction to approve settlements in regular actions.

The court also dismissed the motion to convert the action into a class proceeding, holding that an additional threshold test beyond Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure must be met for such conversions.

This threshold was not satisfied due to serious limitation period issues, problems with the proposed class definition, common issues, preferable procedure criteria, and the suitability of the plaintiff as a representative.

The plaintiff sought a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to establish a timetable for the action and extend the time to set it down for trial.

The motion was opposed by two defendants, Sulekha Patel and Nikita Patel.

The court applied the two-part test for contested status hearings, requiring the plaintiff to provide an acceptable explanation for delay and demonstrate that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation, citing corporate financial and organizational difficulties, to be adequate.

It also determined that the opposing defendants had not suffered non-compensable prejudice, partly due to their own inaction during periods of delay.

The motion was granted, and a case conference was ordered to set a timetable for the remaining steps, including a potential summary judgment motion, discoveries, and mediation.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party.

The court determined costs for several motions following a previous endorsement.

Filomena Siggillino was ordered to pay costs for an abandoned motion.

Filomena, Teresa Scalamogna, and Lilianna Siggillino were ordered to pay costs for a successful Vesting Order motion brought by 2377544 Ontario Inc. and an unsuccessful Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) motion brought by Filomena.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity, and adjusted the claimed amounts based on the complexity of the proceedings, the results achieved, and the clarity of the costs submissions.

This endorsement addresses two motions within related legal proceedings concerning a "family feud" over a property.

Robert Di Toro, on behalf of 2377544 Ontario Inc., sought a vesting order to facilitate the sale of a property, with $1,500,000.00 to be paid into court as previously ordered by Master Short.

Filomena Siggillino, the mother of the other parties, brought a cross-motion for leave to register her own Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property, alleging fraudulent misuse of a Power of Attorney by her daughters, Teresa Scalamogna and Lilianna Siggillino.

The court dismissed Filomena's cross-motion for a CPL, finding no tenable cause of action against Robert/2377544 Ontario Inc. and that damages would be an appropriate remedy.

The court also noted the disingenuous position of Teresa and Lilianna in supporting their mother's motion, which undermined their own prior claims, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the court granted the vesting order sought by 2377544 Ontario Inc., allowing the property sale to proceed with the specified funds paid into court.

The appellant, Jungmin Lee, appealed his convictions and sentence for careless driving and failing to comply with a recognizance, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.

He alleged his counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and did not seek a conditional discharge.

The court found that while counsel's omissions regarding immigration consequences constituted ineffective assistance, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The original conviction and suspended sentence were deemed warranted, and a conditional discharge would have been contrary to public interest given the serious nature of the breach of recognizance.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff obtained judgment on a promissory note and successfully defended a counterclaim alleging fraud, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff and its principal were awarded substantial indemnity costs of $115,530.26 because the plaintiff beat its Rule 49 offer to settle and the defendants made unfounded, seriously prejudicial allegations of fraud.

The third-party real estate broker and his brokerage, who also successfully defended the counterclaim, were awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,047.28, as there was no clear finding of reprehensible conduct against them to justify elevated costs.