2 total
Crown fiduciary duty required negotiated compensation reflecting reserve land's hydroelectric value.
The appellant First Nation's reserve land was flooded in the 1920s–1930s to power hydroelectricity generation without its consent, without compensation, and without lawful authorization.
The trial judge found Canada breached its fiduciary duty and awarded $30,000,000 in equitable compensation, valuing the flooded land based on general expropriation principles and excluding the land's value to the hydroelectricity project.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred by treating compliance with minimum expropriation obligations as sufficient to discharge the fiduciary duty, which required Canada to negotiate compensation reflecting the full value of the land to the project.
The appeal was allowed and the equitable compensation award returned to the Federal Court for reassessment to include the value of the flooded land for hydroelectricity generation.
Côté J. dissented, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's compensation assessment and no evidentiary basis for the majority's approach.
The court ordered each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.
This decision addresses costs following an eight-day trial in a family law matter.
The court found divided success, noting that neither party's pre-trial offers to settle fully aligned with the final judgment.
The applicant was largely unsuccessful on the matrimonial home valuation date, while the respondent conceded the separation date late and failed to pay spousal support.
Both parties were found to have behaved unreasonably on certain issues, contributing to the necessity of a trial.
Considering the mixed outcomes and the conduct of the parties, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.
