David Tortell

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.

Following the dismissal of a proposed intervener's motion to intervene, the successful party and another intervener sought costs.

The court awarded the successful party elevated costs fixed at $460,000, apportioning liability among the proposed intervener (65%) and the two defendants (17.5% each) due to the defendants' delayed positions which complicated the motion.

The second intervener was awarded $12,500 in costs against the proposed intervener, limited to costs incurred after it first requested them in its factum.

This endorsement addresses three motions to intervene in a complex, long-standing action by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians (SNGR) against the Crown for breaches of duty and treaty obligations related to the Haldimand Proclamation.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) sought to intervene as a party, arguing it represented the true rights-holder and aimed to derail the litigation in favor of nation-to-nation negotiations.

The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) sought to intervene as a party due to concerns about SNGR's expert evidence impacting MCFN's history and treaty rights.

Men's Fire of the Six Nations Grand River Territory sought to intervene in HDI's motion to oppose it.

The court granted Men's Fire leave to intervene in HDI's motion, denied HDI's motion to intervene in the main action (finding its interest not genuine, an abuse of process, and causing undue delay), and granted MCFN's motion to intervene in the main action with specific terms to manage its participation.

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.

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

Key issues include determining the venue for upcoming intervention motions, managing requests for participation from individuals in response to public notices, addressing the filing of a redacted motion record to protect privacy, setting procedures for evidentiary objections, approving a minor change to the online notice regarding hearing dates, and providing detailed CaseLines directions for electronic document management.

The court provided specific instructions for each of these procedural aspects to ensure the efficient and transparent progression of the litigation.

This case management conference addressed the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim and the defendants' request to vary the timetable for expert reports.

The court scheduled the motion to amend the statement of claim.

Regarding the expert reports, the court was prepared to consider an extension but required more specific information from the defendants regarding which reports needed expansion, why, and the estimated time required, rather than vacating the date outright.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address the expert report timetable.

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.

The applicants brought an application challenging the constitutionality of Ontario's COVID-19 proof of vaccination requirement (Ont.

Reg. 364/20) under sections 2(a), 7, and 15 of the Charter.

The applicants argued that the regulation, which required patrons to provide proof of vaccination to enter certain businesses, violated their freedom of religion, right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and equality rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no Charter contraventions.

The court held that the regulation did not interfere with the applicants' religious beliefs, did not compel medical treatment or engage the right to security of the person, and did not discriminate based on religion or disability.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that extended the pre-election restricted spending period for third-party political advertising from six to twelve months.

The court found that the 12-month restriction infringed freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Oakes test, the court held that while the objective of fostering fair elections was pressing and substantial, the 12-month period failed the minimal impairment test because the government's own experts indicated a six-month period was effective.

The impugned provisions were declared of no force or effect.

The applicants in a constitutional application requested leave to file factums exceeding the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction.

The Attorney General opposed the request.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that the 30-page limit is a serious policy intended to focus counsel on the issues, and that leave is exceptional and granted sparingly.

The court noted that since there was still a week before the factums were due, counsel had sufficient time to produce shorter, more focused versions.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an application challenging the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act.

The respondents opposed the intervention, arguing the CCLA would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicants.

The court granted the motion, finding that the CCLA's expertise in civil liberties and its broader policy perspective on the balance between free speech and fair elections would provide a useful and distinct contribution without causing prejudice or delaying the proceedings.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

The 12th Case Management Conference addressed the timetable for expert reports and pleading amendments in a complex Indigenous litigation.

The Plaintiff sought a simultaneous exchange of expert reports, arguing for procedural reciprocity and efficiency.

The Defendants advocated for a sequential timetable, asserting it would allow them to better understand and respond to the Plaintiff's case, aligning with common practice in similar complex litigation.

The court adopted the Defendants' sequential timetable for expert reports, finding no basis to deviate from established practice in complex land claims.

The court also granted leave for the Plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, with the formal filing deferred due to COVID-19 court closures.

The 11th Case Management Conference addressed the trial process and timetable for a complex action involving historic evidence.

The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial but disagreed on the degree of bifurcation.

The plaintiff proposed a four-phase structure (two liability, two remedies/crossclaims), while the defendants proposed a two-phase structure (all liability in Phase 1, all remedies/crossclaims in Phase 2).

The court adopted the two-phase structure, finding it more efficient and less prone to inconsistencies, while reserving the right for parties to seek further refinement at the pre-trial stage.

A detailed timetable for pleadings, discovery, and documentary production was also established to keep the action on track for a 2022 trial.

The applicant, a body rub parlour operator, appealed the Chief Building Official's (CBO) decision to issue a building permit to a competitor (the respondent) in the same building.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of a zoning by-law that prohibited certain commercial uses on properties "fronting" on the west side of Victoria Park Avenue for a depth of 60m.

The building's main entrance was on a side street, but its side wall ran along Victoria Park Avenue.

The court found the applicant had standing as a business competitor and that the CBO's decision should be reviewed on a reasonableness standard.

Interpreting "front" in the context of the by-law's policy to organize land uses along the main thoroughfare, the court concluded that the building "fronted" on Victoria Park Avenue.

Therefore, the respondent's body rub parlour was not a permitted use in that zone, and the building permit was improperly issued.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing a civil action against federal parole officers, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the plaintiff’s litigation conduct was vexatious, misleading, and devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff repeatedly attempted to mislead the court, engaged in deceptive conduct, unnecessarily complicated the proceedings, and pursued a claim lacking any legal merit.

Applying the principles of reasonableness, fairness, proportionality, and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $70,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.