Corey Benjamin Shefman

Karen Bell appealed the dismissal of her defamation action against Garden River First Nation and two councillors.

The action arose from a Censure Motion passed by the Council, which stated Bell had shared "false information" in a Facebook post.

The motion judge found the statement prima facie defamatory but upheld the defence of justification, concluding the information was indeed false.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Bell's motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it irrelevant, and affirmed the motion judge's interpretation of the Censure Motion.

The Court agreed that the specific quoted information in Bell's Facebook post was false and misleading, thereby upholding the defence of justification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving First Nation sought interlocutory relief to restrain mining exploration activities within a culturally and spiritually significant area of its traditional territory and to prevent approval of a separate exploration permit application.

The court held that interlocutory declaratory relief against the Crown and the Director was barred by statute, and that relief against another prospector was premature while his permit application remained on temporary hold.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework in the context of asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights and the Crown’s duty to consult, the court found serious issues respecting meaningful consultation and potential infringement of s. 35 rights, irreparable harm to sacred, burial, harvesting, and cultural sites, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the status quo.

An interim injunction was granted against the permit-holder companies, and the moving party was relieved from the usual undertaking as to damages.

The applicant First Nation sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the Minister of Finance regarding the modernization of gaming in Ontario, specifically the decisions to tender and bundle a gaming zone that included the applicant's reserve.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the impugned decisions were policy and commercial in nature and therefore not justiciable.

The court also found no bad faith, no denial of procedural fairness, and no breach of the duty to consult.

Furthermore, the court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the application for excessive and unexplained delay that caused prejudice.

Aroland First Nation and Ginoogaming First Nation sought partial summary judgment for a declaration that the Crown's duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is triggered by ongoing invasive testing (integrity digs and hydrostatic testing) on established natural gas pipelines traversing their traditional territories.

The defendants opposed, arguing no duty to consult or that the matter was unsuitable for partial summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that the issue could not be fairly and justly decided through partial summary judgment due to the need for a careful, incremental approach to Aboriginal law, disputed facts regarding adverse impact, significant overlap with broader issues of duty scope and breach, and the novelty of the case.