Catherine A. Coughlan

The claimant brought a Request for Direction under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement after his claim for compensation for sexual assault was dismissed by an Adjudicator and upheld on Review and Re-Review.

The Adjudicator had relied on extra-curial knowledge to infer that the assault occurred after the school closed.

The court found that the Re-Review Adjudicator failed to apply the IAP Model by not correcting the Adjudicator's improper use of extra-curial knowledge and the Review Adjudicator's failure to find a palpable and overriding error.

The court assumed jurisdiction to quantify the claimant's award and determine costs.

This motion concerned preliminary relief for a Request for Directions (RFD) brought by a claimant under the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), alleging non-disclosure of documents for St. Anne's Indian Residential School claims.

The claimant sought a re-hearing of their IAP application, directives on evidence, damages, and various orders regarding counsel and review processes.

The court granted a confidentiality order and publication ban for the record, but adjourned all other preliminary relief requests and the RFD itself as premature, pending the completion of the IAP re-review process.

A motion sought to add the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation as a party, or alternatively as an intervenor, to a request for directions brought by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning document production obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving party argued that because the Commission’s mandate was nearing expiry, it might become responsible for receiving and archiving documents produced under any order.

The court held that the repository’s role under the settlement agreement was distinct from the Commission’s document‑collection mandate and that its presence was not necessary for the court to adjudicate the issues.

The court further held that the moving party had not demonstrated a direct interest or that its participation would enhance the court’s determination of the request for directions.

Both joinder and intervention were refused.

Former students of a residential school brought a Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement alleging breaches of disclosure obligations in the Independent Assessment Process.

The court previously granted limited relief requiring additional document searches by the RCMP but dismissed most other requested remedies.

In this costs endorsement, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of approximately $95,000, arguing that claimants raising reasonable issues under the settlement framework should recover their legal costs regardless of outcome due to access to justice concerns.

The court held that while the applicants achieved only limited success, they were entitled to some compensation for raising a significant disclosure issue requiring judicial determination.

Exercising discretion in light of the unique context of the settlement agreement, the court awarded reduced costs.

Supplementary reasons addressing disagreement over the form of an order following a request for directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement Independent Assessment Process.

The applicants sought broad language compelling Canada to produce documents relating to alleged abuse at a residential school and to impose general disclosure obligations.

The court held that the operative order should reflect only the specific remedy granted in the earlier decision, not broader interpretive statements about Canada’s obligations under Schedule D, Appendix VIII of the settlement agreement.

The court ordered Canada to conduct additional document searches, including RCMP records relating to a specified alleged assault, update relevant narrative and person‑of‑interest reports, and produce documents upon request.

Other requested relief was dismissed.

Former students of two residential schools brought a Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement alleging failures in Canada's document disclosure and reporting obligations in the Independent Assessment Process.

After partial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs exceeding $143,000, while Canada argued for partial indemnity costs in the range of $15,000 to $20,000.

The court held that costs under the IRSSA involve a special discretionary framework reflecting the reconciliation objectives of the settlement agreement.

Balancing success on the motion, litigation conduct, and fairness considerations, the court awarded reduced costs of $78,089.95.

The applicants, former students of St. Anne's and Bishop Horden Indian Residential Schools, brought a Request for Directions asserting that Canada failed to comply with its report writing obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

They sought orders requiring Canada to revise School Narratives and Person of Interest Reports, and to provide unredacted source documents to adjudicators and claimants.

The court found that Canada's updated reports for St. Anne's did not comply with the Agreement and ordered Canada to revise them to include a detailed chart of abuse allegations and corresponding documents.

The court also ordered Canada, on consent, to provide unredacted copies of publicly available court records, but dismissed the request for unredacted copies of other documents, citing privacy safeguards in the Agreement.

The applicants, former students at the Bishop Horden Indian Residential School, brought a Request for Directions alleging that Canada breached its document disclosure obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

They sought orders compelling Canada to conduct additional searches for documents related to abuse at the school and requiring the Secretariat to establish a witness-matching program.

The court found that Canada breached its contractual obligations by failing to collect documents from the RCMP detachment at Moose Factory.

The court ordered Canada to conduct these additional searches but dismissed the requests for a witness-matching program and broader document production, finding they exceeded Canada's obligations under the IRSSA.

In a refusals motion arising from a Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the moving parties sought answers concerning the federal respondent’s coding of documents and its information-retrieval capabilities in relation to school narratives and person-of-interest reports.

The court held the proposed line of questioning was not relevant to the real issue in the RFD, namely the interpretation of the settlement agreement and whether the reports delivered met the required standard.

Even if marginally relevant, the answers would have little utility and failed the proportionality principle.

The refusals motion was dismissed, with costs to be dealt with in the context of the broader RFD.

Following earlier decisions concerning requests for directions in litigation arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the court had previously awarded costs payable by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to Independent Counsel.

After that decision was released, Canada delivered additional submissions asserting it should not be liable for costs, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asserted a right to file further reply submissions.

The court held that the additional submissions were unnecessary and procedurally improper because the parties had already been given the opportunity to address costs.

The judge confirmed that the earlier costs decision would not be altered and refused to permit further reply submissions.

Requests for directions were brought regarding the disposition of documents generated in the Independent Assessment Process established under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving parties sought guidance on whether the documents, which contained highly sensitive narratives of abuse and personal information, should be archived or destroyed.

The court held that the documents were confidential, subject to the implied undertaking and the law of breach of confidence, and were created for a private adjudicative process.

Interpreting the settlement agreement and exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the class action settlement, the court concluded the documents must ultimately be destroyed after a retention period.

During the retention period, claimants must be notified of their option to consent to the transfer of redacted records to the National Research Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

Claimants in the Independent Assessment Process under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement brought a request for directions seeking disclosure of expert reports prepared for a related criminal prosecution and their distribution within the adjudicative process.

They also sought orders directing the Chief Adjudicator to provide the reports and criminal trial transcripts to other claimants and guidance regarding the evidentiary use of those materials in hearings.

The court held that the IRSSA framework assigns adjudicators exclusive jurisdiction over evidentiary rulings and that the supervising court cannot compel disclosure of the requested reports or dictate their evidentiary use within the IAP.

The applicants’ request would effectively amend the settlement structure, which the court lacks jurisdiction to do.

The request for directions was dismissed.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission sought directions regarding Canada's obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to provide documents archived at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and documents relating to the TRC's legacy mandate.

Canada moved to strike the TRC's request, arguing the TRC lacked capacity and standing, and moved to strike several affidavits.

The court held that the TRC had capacity to bring the proceedings and declined to strike most of the affidavits.

On the substantive issues, the court ruled that Canada's obligation to provide relevant documents extends to those archived at LAC, but that the TRC's legacy mandate does not include evaluating Canada's policy responses, meaning Canada need not produce documents relating to those responses.

Following a successful application to add two institutions to Schedule “F” of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the moving parties sought legal costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court interpreted Article 12.01(6) of the Settlement Agreement, which allows Canada to provide requestors with “reasonable legal costs and disbursements.” The court held that this standard is distinct from traditional indemnity scales used in civil procedure and requires reimbursement only for costs reasonably necessary to the application.

After reviewing the accounts, the court excluded certain expenses and reduced amounts where senior counsel performed work that could reasonably have been completed by junior counsel.

The court fixed reasonable legal costs and disbursements accordingly.