Catherine Coughlan

Independent Counsel brought a Request for Directions seeking an order imposing strict privacy conditions on the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation regarding documents transferred from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

They argued the Centre was bound by the same federal privacy legislation as the Commission under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the Centre is not a federal government institution and is appropriately governed by Manitoba's privacy legislation and the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation Act, which strike an appropriate balance between truth-telling and privacy.

Two Requests for Direction (RFDs) were brought regarding the disclosure of documents from prior civil and criminal proceedings concerning St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

In the first RFD, an IAP claimant alleged Canada breached its disclosure obligations by withholding discovery transcripts.

The court dismissed this RFD, finding the transcripts were protected by settlement privilege and the deemed undertaking rule.

In the second RFD, former students and an association sought extraordinary relief, including investigations into the conduct of counsel and the reopening of claims.

The court dismissed the second RFD, holding that the requestors lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to grant the requested relief, as complaints about lawyer conduct fall outside the court's administrative role.

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.

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.

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.