5 total
Application for judicial review of Coroner's decision on inquest scope dismissed as reasonable.
The Ministry of the Solicitor General sought judicial review of a Presiding Coroner's interlocutory decision regarding the scope of an upcoming inquest into seven deaths at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.
The Coroner had included issues of correctional programming and staff absenteeism in the scope, and admitted expert evidence on programming.
The Divisional Court held that the challenge to the evidentiary ruling was premature.
On the scope issues, the Court found the Coroner's decision reasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant considering whether programming and staffing were contributing factors to the deaths.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Sealing order granted on consent to protect confidential coroner's inquest brief and victim impact statements.
The moving party, the presiding coroner at an inquest into several deaths in custody, brought a motion on consent for a sealing order over the coroner's inquest brief and confidential correspondence containing draft victim impact statements.
The motion was brought in the context of a judicial review application by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
The Divisional Court granted the sealing order, applying the test from Sherman Estate.
The court found that the benefits of protecting the confidentiality of the investigative materials and the families' expectations outweighed the deleterious effects of sealing, preserving the integrity of the coroner's process.
The Court of Appeal held that the Registrar's strict evidentiary policy for proving paternity was unreasonable when applied to historical claims for Indian status.
The appellant, Dr. Lynn Gehl, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her application for registration as an "Indian" under the Indian Act.
Dr. Gehl's entitlement to status turned on the 1985 amendments to the Act, which restored status to individuals whose ancestors had been unjustly deprived of it.
The central issue was whether the Registrar's Policy, which imposed strict evidentiary requirements for proving paternity, unreasonably denied Dr. Gehl registration when the identity of her paternal grandfather was unknown.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted a declaration that Dr. Gehl was entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act.
Appeal from denial of criminal injuries compensation dismissed; Board properly considered applicant's subsequent criminal record.
The appellant, an Aboriginal man who suffered abuse at a training school as a youth, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation.
The Board had weighed the abuse he suffered against his extensive subsequent criminal record and concluded compensation was not reasonable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board made no error of law in considering his criminal record under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and that Gladue principles do not strictly apply to civil compensation determinations.
Unknown paternity is not an analogous ground under s. 15.
The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion challenging s. 6 of the Indian Act and the Registrar’s Proof of Paternity Policy under s. 15 of the Charter after being denied Indian status registration because her paternal grandfather was unknown and unknowable.
She alleged discrimination based on race, gender, illegitimacy, and family or marital status.
The court held that all applicants bear the same onus to prove entitlement to registration and that unknowable paternity is not an analogous ground under s. 15.
No Charter infringement was established, so the constitutional claim failed, although the court expressed concern in obiter that the policy’s evidentiary demands may not be fully consistent with the Act’s purpose and history.
