Donald Ralph Colborne

The applicant sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of the Ministry of Mines' decision to add two other First Nations to consultation lists for mining projects on its traditional territory.

The applicant opposed adding the other First Nations as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that the entitlement of the other First Nations to participate as parties must be resolved before hearing the motion for an extension of time, as their rights were directly implicated by the proposed application.

The plaintiff First Nations sought a declaration that a two-chain strip of land along the shores of Rainy Lake and Rainy River formed part of the Agency One Reserve, created pursuant to Treaty #3.

The court reviewed extensive historical, ethnohistorical, and surveying evidence regarding the creation of the reserve in the 1870s.

The court found that the Crown intended to exclude the two-chain allowance from the reserve to accommodate the Dawson Route and the developing forestry industry.

The court further held that this exclusion did not breach the Crown's fiduciary duty or the honour of the Crown, as the Ojibway retained access to the shoreline and no express promise had been made to include it.

The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Ontario, and Canada sought leave to appeal an interim preservation order that maintained the Town of Fort Frances' possession of a park pending trial.

The moving parties argued that injunctive relief, including preservation orders, is statutorily prohibited against the Crown.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's reliance on Supreme Court of Canada precedent, which allows courts to maintain the status quo to ensure the effectiveness of their final disposition.

The applicant, a status Indian and member of Couchiching First Nation, sought leave to appeal his convictions under the Public Lands Act for building a cabin without a work permit and contrary to a stop work order.

He argued the cabin was built in furtherance of his treaty right to hunt and fish, challenged the constitutionality of the Act, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the justice of the peace's relationship with a Ministry of Natural Resources manager.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the determination of treaty rights is a question of law, the applicant failed to prove the cabin was reasonably incidental to his rights, he could not challenge the regulatory regime without establishing a right, and the high threshold for disqualifying bias was not met.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's two-year delay in rendering a decision, followed by an additional five-month delay to release brief reasons, constituted an unreasonable delay.

The appeal was allowed, the finding of guilt was set aside, and the proceedings were stayed.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an application to determine which Indian Bands were the beneficial owners of the Agency One Reserve, created in 1875 pursuant to Treaty 3.

The applications judge found that the reserve was set apart solely for the use and benefit of the Rainy Lake Bands, based on historical evidence including a 1908 surrender of land.

The Rainy River Bands appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's decision on entitlement, finding it supported by the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal regarding costs, ordering the Crown to pay the bands' costs of the application on a substantial-indemnity basis due to its fiduciary role and its responsibility for the historical uncertainty.

The respondent, a bingo hall manager on a First Nation reserve, was acquitted of keeping a common gaming house after continuing operations despite the revocation of a provincial gaming licence.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that criminal law could not be used to enforce compliance with a provincial regulatory scheme.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to recognize that the prohibition of gambling except as provincially regulated is valid criminal law.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its failure to assist her after she was terminated.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complainant was incapable of returning to work, the complaint did not make out a prima facie case, and there was excessive delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the factual disputes required a hearing and that the delay, while significant, did not cause real prejudice to the respondents.

The Board noted that any remedy could be adjusted to account for the delay.