Daniel Goudge

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review regarding the Law Society of Ontario's failure to accommodate him during the barrister examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the applicant had not exhausted his opportunities to re-write the examination.

The court emphasized that judicial interference in administrative proceedings should be avoided until the process has run its course, especially since the Law Society had subsequently put the requested accommodations in place for a re-write.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.

The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.

These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).

Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.

The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment in a land claim case.

Following an earlier declaration that a substantial portion of Sauble Beach was reserved for the sole use and benefit of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and forms part of Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29, the court considered whether to grant a life interest in certain 'Disputed Lots' to current family title owners (Landowners).

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and Canada opposed this.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to impose a proprietary interest contrary to the Indian Act and Constitution Act, as reserve land is inalienable.

It also found that granting such an interest would not advance reconciliation.

Consequently, the temporary delay in the original declaration that no third parties have an interest in the land was terminated, making the declaration effective immediately.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation brought an action seeking a declaration that a 1.4-mile strip of Sauble Beach (the Disputed Beach) is part of their unsurrendered reserve land under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The court found that the Imperial Crown's surveyor, Charles Rankin, improperly marked the northern terminus of the reserve's eastern boundary further south than the Treaty stipulated, depriving the First Nation of the promised coastline.

The court held that the Imperial Crown and the federal Crown breached their sui generis fiduciary duties and acted inconsistently with the honour of the Crown by failing to properly survey, protect, and preserve the reserve.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the First Nation's claim was defeated by Crown patents, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Limitations Act, laches, dedication, or proprietary estoppel.

The court declared that the Disputed Beach remains unsurrendered reserve land for the sole use and benefit of the First Nation.

The plaintiffs brought an action for medical negligence against Dr. Ibrahim following a Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT) surgery performed on Ms. O'Neill-Renouf.

Immediately after the surgery, Ms. O'Neill-Renouf experienced severe pain in her right thigh, which was later diagnosed as an injury to her right obturator nerve, resulting in permanent pain and physical limitations.

The plaintiffs alleged the injury was caused by incorrect needle placement during the surgery, constituting a breach of the standard of care.

The defendant argued the injury was due to edema (swelling) tracking naturally from the surgical site.

The court found the plaintiff's theory to be the only reasonable explanation, concluding that Dr. Ibrahim was liable for the damages due to a breach of the standard of care.

This case conference addressed the scheduling of Carillion Construction Inc.'s motion for further productions against the City of Toronto and NORR Limited in a complex multi-party construction litigation concerning Toronto's Union Station project.

Carillion sought various production orders and a discovery completion deadline prior to a scheduled mediation.

The City and NORR argued for delaying the motion until after mediation, citing the volume of existing documents and the laborious process of retrieving new ones.

The court determined that Carillion's motion should proceed prior to mediation, finding no cogent reason to delay the argument, but indicated that the actual production of documents, if ordered, could potentially be deferred until after the mediation.

The court urged counsel to schedule the motion.

This case conference endorsement outlines procedural progress in a complex, multi-party construction litigation involving Carillion Construction Inc., the City of Toronto, and NORR Limited, among others.

The court addressed the schedule for executive discoveries, ruling that they must proceed as planned, contrary to the City's submission.

It also confirmed the mediation schedule for March-April 2019, involving various claimants and insurers.

Further directions were given regarding documentary production by subcontractors and the City's amended third-party claim against Metrolinx, setting deadlines for Metrolinx's response or motion.

The plaintiffs, property developers, brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add three new defendants and plead conspiracy and oppression regarding allegedly inflated billings for deficiency work.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiffs had exercised reasonable diligence in investigating the billing discrepancies and raised a triable issue regarding discoverability.

The court held that the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action and would not cause undue prejudice.