Diane Soroka

The plaintiffs brought a motion for Court approval of the Fee Agreement reached in relation to the partial settlement of the Day Scholars class proceeding.

Unlike many class actions, Class Counsel worked on a fee-for-service basis rather than a contingency agreement.

The Court found the proposed fees, which included an $8.3 million payment for past fees, to be fair and reasonable given the exceptional results achieved, the complexity of the litigation, and the significant time expended.

The Court also approved $15,000 honoraria payments to the Representative Plaintiffs for their extraordinary efforts and personal sacrifices.

Independent Counsel brought a Request for Directions seeking an order imposing strict privacy conditions on the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation regarding documents transferred from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

They argued the Centre was bound by the same federal privacy legislation as the Commission under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the Centre is not a federal government institution and is appropriately governed by Manitoba's privacy legislation and the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation Act, which strike an appropriate balance between truth-telling and privacy.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from Requests for Direction (RFDs) concerning the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) Notice Program.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN), Inuit Representatives, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), and Independent Counsel sought full indemnity costs from Canada for their participation.

The court affirmed its special jurisdiction under IRSSA for costs awards, allowing deviation from standard indemnity principles.

It found Canada to be an appropriate costs payor due to its role as IRSSA administrator, not misconduct.

However, the court denied costs for pre-litigation activities, deeming them voluntary, and found the amounts claimed by NCTR and Independent Counsel excessive and disproportionate.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to all four parties, significantly less than requested.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Indian Residential Schools Independent Assessment Process brought a Request for Direction regarding the notice program for the disposition of highly confidential records.

The court previously ordered the destruction of these records subject to a 15-year retention period during which claimants could choose to archive them at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to order Canada to fund the participation of the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Representatives, and the NCTR in the notice program.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Class Proceedings Act and its inherent supervisory powers, and ordered Canada to provide funding, albeit at reduced amounts reflecting the organizations' limited roles.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging provincial approval of a ski resort project in Qat’muk on freedom of religion and section 35 consultation grounds.

The majority held section 2(a) protects freedom to hold and manifest beliefs, not protection of the spiritual object itself, and found no Charter infringement.

It further held the Minister reasonably concluded deep consultation and accommodation had occurred over many years, and that section 35 guarantees a process rather than a veto over development outcomes.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a brief costs endorsement fixing the costs of Independent Counsel at $60,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes, payable by Canada.

Following earlier decisions concerning requests for directions in litigation arising from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the court had previously awarded costs payable by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to Independent Counsel.

After that decision was released, Canada delivered additional submissions asserting it should not be liable for costs, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asserted a right to file further reply submissions.

The court held that the additional submissions were unnecessary and procedurally improper because the parties had already been given the opportunity to address costs.

The judge confirmed that the earlier costs decision would not be altered and refused to permit further reply submissions.

Following earlier reasons concerning Requests for Direction under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement regarding the treatment of Independent Assessment Process documents, the court addressed costs.

Independent counsel who represented the interests of claimants sought full or substantial indemnity costs against the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The court held that although the commission’s request for directions was reasonable and undertaken pursuant to its mandate, independent counsel had effectively acted as amicus curiae and provided helpful submissions on behalf of claimants.

Considering the partial success of the parties and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed, the court exercised its discretion to award reduced partial indemnity costs.

The appellant, a former student at an Indian residential school operated by the Government of Canada and the United Church of Canada, sought damages for sexual abuse suffered at the school.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that both Canada and the Church were jointly vicariously liable for the sexual assaults committed by a dormitory supervisor, rejecting the application of a doctrine of charitable immunity for the Church.

The Court also found that the Indian Act did not impose a non-delegable statutory duty on Canada to ensure student safety.

The trial judge's unequal apportionment of fault (75% to Canada, 25% to the Church) and assessment of damages, which excluded prior trauma and statute-barred wrongs, were upheld.

The appellant, a Mohawk, was charged with fishing without a licence in Lake St. Francis, contrary to the Quebec Fishery Regulations.

He argued that he was exercising an aboriginal right to fish for food protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that aboriginal rights can exist independently of aboriginal title, and that the appellant had demonstrated an aboriginal right to fish for food in the area.

The Court found that this right had not been extinguished, and that the regulatory scheme, which subjected the right to unstructured ministerial discretion, constituted an unjustified infringement.