Edmund Se Huang

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The appellant appealed an order striking her Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Crown.

The appellant argued the claim could be read as pleading negligent investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the words 'negligent investigation' did not appear and no supporting facts were pleaded.

The appellants, commercial fishers on Lake Erie, challenged the regulatory regime under which the provincial Minister of Natural Resources imposed catch quotas for walleye and yellow perch on their licences.

They argued that the federal Fisheries Act and regulations did not validly delegate this authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister fettered her discretion and acted unreasonably by adopting the catch recommendations of the international Lake Erie Committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Governor in Council validly sub-delegated the authority to the provincial Minister, and that the Minister's reliance on the Committee's recommendations was both reasonable and not a fettering of discretion.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his statement of claim, which alleged negligence and malfeasance by the ODSP for denying him disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim lacked material facts regarding his medical condition and how it met the criteria for benefits.

The court held that a mere denial of benefits does not establish negligence or misfeasance in public office, and declined to grant leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant's pleading wholly failed to plead any particulars of the claims alleged.

Costs of $6,250 were awarded to each of the respondents.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the Crown for failing to comply with the notice requirement in s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that notice under s. 7(1) must be in writing.

The court also declined to interfere with the motion judge's $1000 costs order.