Eric Wagner

The Crown and Ontario First Nations entered into a revenue sharing agreement requiring the Crown to appoint a First Nations representative to the board of directors of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).

When no appointment was made, First Nations sought arbitration.

The Crown and OLG moved to strike the claim, arguing the appointment was protected by Crown prerogative and non-justiciable.

The arbitration panel dismissed the motion and also allowed First Nations to withdraw its claim against OLG.

The Crown and OLG appealed both decisions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown prerogative could not be used to avoid a declaration that a contract had been breached, and that OLG was not a necessary party to the arbitration.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from a non‑party, the Special Investigations Unit, arising from an investigation into a collision between an e‑bicycle and a police vehicle.

The court reviewed the high threshold governing non‑party production, including the requirements that the documents be relevant to a material issue and that it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without them.

While relevance was established, the court held that most requested documents should not be produced because equivalent witness information had already been obtained from police sources and the public interest in maintaining SIU witness confidentiality outweighed disclosure.

However, limited disclosure was ordered where fairness required it, including the statement of a deceased witness, the statement of the police officer defendant, related follow‑up reports, and redacted investigator notes.

The balance of the requested documents was not ordered produced.

The plaintiff, a minor who suffered severe abuse by his biological parents, brought a civil action against various parties, including the police and CAS, alleging negligence in failing to protect him.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 seeking production of the complete Crown Brief from the Ministry of the Attorney General and the police.

The court dismissed the motion against the Crown, noting the police already possessed the brief.

The court found the motion against the police was improperly brought under Rule 30.10 as they were parties, but proceeded to determine relevance under Rule 30.06.

The court held that the contents of the Crown Brief were relevant to what the police knew or ought to have known prior to the final assault, and declared the material producible.

The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.

The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.