Conor Carr

In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.

The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.

Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.

The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.

A daughter claimed $57,000 from her mother, alleging she had made monthly investment payments of $1,000 between April 2005 and December 2009 toward a twelve-unit rental property in exchange for a promise that the property would eventually be transferred to her and rent proceeds would be shared.

The mother denied the claim on multiple grounds: statute of limitations, insufficient proof of payments, and that the claim was premature as the property was to be transferred upon her death.

The court found the daughter had proven the $57,000 in payments on a balance of probabilities and established unjust enrichment.

The court applied an equitable set-off of $10,800 for rent-free occupancy and services rendered, reducing the award to $46,200.

The court rejected the statute of limitations defence, finding the limitation period commenced on January 28, 2018, when the mother indicated the relationship was at an end, and the action was commenced within two years.

The court also rejected the clean hands doctrine and premature claim defences.

The applicant, Robert’s Plumbing & Sheet Metal Co., brought a motion to strike the Statement of Defence of the corporate respondent, 2844683 Ontario Inc. o/a Gallucci’s Pizza, for non-compliance with Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires corporate parties to be represented by a lawyer or obtain leave.

The respondent, represented by its sole officer and director who is not a lawyer, failed to comply despite requests and did not appear at the motion.

The court, applying principles from caselaw, determined that while striking a pleading for non-compliance should only occur in the interests of justice, a "last chance" order was appropriate.

The court ordered the respondent to retain a lawyer or bring a motion for leave within 30 days, failing which the Statement of Defence would be struck without further notice, leading to default judgment.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs.