Christine Perruzza

This case management conference endorsement addresses the timetable for a complex action, primarily focusing on the delivery of expert reports and amended pleadings.

The court resolved disagreements between the plaintiff, defendants, and intervener regarding deadlines for expert reports, particularly those from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) and experts who had been ill.

The court also set a deadline for Ontario's defence to Canada's cross-claim, prioritizing realistic timelines and efficiency over the plaintiff's desire for earlier closures.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed the timing for the delivery of the defendants' expert reports and the scheduling of motions to amend and strike pleadings.

The defendants sought to vacate expert report deadlines, arguing new claims required new experts.

The court largely denied this, granting only a brief extension for expert reports to June 9, 2023, with an exception for an ill expert.

The court also granted leave for the defendants' cross-motion to strike portions of the pleading, ordering it to be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 30, 2023, emphasizing the need to settle pleading propriety before summer.

A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.

The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.

This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in ongoing litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The endorsement finalizes the content of a notice for intervention motions, adjusts the timetable for cross-examinations and factum deliveries, resolves confidentiality concerns regarding expert reports appended to motion materials, and confirms the venue for intervention motion hearings.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.

The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.

The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.

A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.

The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.

The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.

Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion to be added as a party and appointed as a representative of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in an action commenced by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against Canada and Ontario.

Following case conferences, the parties and HDI consented to a timetable for the motion and terms for providing notice to potentially interested non-parties.

The court issued an order on consent setting out the timetable and the specific notice requirements.

The Crown appealed the Stage One and Stage Two decisions regarding the interpretation of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties of 1850.

The trial judge found that the Treaties' augmentation clause imposed a mandatory obligation on the Crown to increase the perpetual annuities if the economic circumstances of the ceded territories warranted it, without a hard cap of $4 per person.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown has an obligation under the honour of the Crown to diligently implement the augmentation promise and that its discretion is not unfettered.

The Court unanimously set aside the trial judge's finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and her specific remedial directives regarding a 'fair share' of net resource revenues.

The Court also unanimously dismissed the Crown's limitations defence.

The Court split on the standard of review for historical treaties and whether the trial judge made extricable errors of law in her interpretation, but the majority upheld her core interpretation of the augmentation clause.

Ontario brought a motion to reopen Stage One of the trial to admit newly discovered evidence, specifically the Fort William Jesuit Mission Diary and a September 30, 1850 entry, along with expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence would not probably have changed the result of the trial and could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The court also ruled that the expert opinion evidence was inadmissible on the motion as it was not necessary and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The Anishinaabe beneficiaries of the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties of 1850 brought actions seeking declarations regarding the interpretation of the annuity augmentation clause in the Treaties.

The Treaties provided for a perpetual annuity that the Crown promised to increase if the ceded territory produced an amount enabling the Crown to do so without incurring loss, provided the amount paid to each individual did not exceed £1 ($4) per year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order.

The Court held that the Crown has a mandatory obligation to increase the collective annuities when economic circumstances warrant, and that the $4 cap applies only to individual distributions, not the collective entitlement.

The Court also found that the Crown owes an ad hoc fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries to engage in the process of determining whether the economic circumstances warrant an increase.

The applicants appealed a Master's order dismissing their action.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the appeal was brought in the wrong court, as appeals from a case management master's final order lie to the Divisional Court.

The court also determined that Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal of vexatious or frivolous proceedings, does not apply to appeals.

The appeal was effectively dismissed due to procedural impropriety.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The respondents, including EACOM Timber Corporation, Northshore Forest Inc., Vermilion Forest Management Company Ltd., and two government Ministries, did not seek costs.

The applicants requested that no costs be ordered against them.

The court, noting the lack of costs requests from the respondents and the applicants' position, ordered that all parties bear their own costs for the interlocutory injunction motion.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to halt logging, road building, and aerial spraying in the Benny area, asserting a lack of meaningful consultation and consent regarding their Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The court applied the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction, finding that the Crown's duty to consult with the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation (AAFN) had been met through extensive engagement, which led to the approval of remedial measures by the AAFN Chief and Council.

The applicants failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm, as their claims were general and the Crown's protective measures were deemed ample.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, given the significant economic impact and job losses that an injunction would cause.

The court also clarified that the duty to consult is owed to the collective Aboriginal group, not individual members, and rejected claims of additional hereditary clan leader reserves under the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.