Francis J. Thatcher

The Aboriginal appellants were convicted of night hunting and discharging a firearm on a road after shooting at a moose decoy from a gravel logging road.

They appealed, arguing they were exercising their hunting rights under Treaty No. 9.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the road was a 'right of way for public vehicular traffic' and constituted land 'taken up' for forestry and public use, making it visibly incompatible with hunting.

Therefore, the treaty right did not protect their actions on that specific road.

The appellant contractor and respondent First Nation were parties to a construction contract containing an arbitration clause.

After a dispute arose and the contract was terminated, the appellant commenced an action against the respondents and several other parties, claiming relief beyond what was arbitrable under the contract.

The appellant then moved for a mandatory order requiring the respondents to proceed to arbitration.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding that arbitrating only part of the dispute would risk multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge made no error in principle in exercising her discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to refuse the mandatory order.

The Township of Shuniah appealed a decision determining that it could not fund an application brought by its Reeve, acting as an 'elector' under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to determine if a municipal councillor was in a conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipality is not an elector and cannot fund the Reeve's application because bringing such an application is outside the ambit of the Reeve's official duties.

The court affirmed that a municipality can only reimburse a member of council for activities carried out in the course of their office.

The appellant appealed an order regarding whether he was acting qua councillor in a suit brought against him by electors concerning his election expenses, and whether a City Council resolution to pay his legal fees was ultra vires.

The Court of Appeal agreed entirely with the motion judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeals, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The appellants argued for no costs due to the novelty and public interest of the issues, while the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and the appellants' conduct.

The Court of Appeal rejected both positions, noting that Rule 49.10 does not apply to appeals.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $25,000 total for both proceedings.

The appellants, electors in a municipal election, sought to challenge a municipal councillor's election campaign finances.

They first applied for a compliance audit under the Municipal Elections Act, which the city council rejected.

The appellants then brought an application in the Superior Court, which was stayed on the basis that the Act constitutes a complete code of procedure.

One appellant subsequently swore a private information before a justice of the peace, who issued a summons.

The Superior Court quashed the summons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the election campaign finance provisions of the Municipal Elections Act constitute a complete code of procedure that reserves the right to commence proceedings to the municipal council, precluding both a private application and a private information.