Gary Befus

The appellants, members of the Blood Tribe, appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision holding that their treaty land entitlement (TLE) claim under Treaty No. 7 was statute-barred under Alberta's six-year limitation period.

The Blood Tribe argued that no actionable cause of action for breach of treaty rights existed until s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force.

The Supreme Court held that s. 35(1) did not create a cause of action for breach of treaty rights — treaty rights flow from the treaty itself and were enforceable at common law from the date of execution.

Accordingly, the TLE claim was statute-barred.

However, the Court exercised its discretion to grant declaratory relief, finding that the Crown's dishonourable breach of Treaty No. 7 warranted a declaration to promote reconciliation, identify the Crown's misconduct, and assist in restoring the nation-to-nation relationship.

The Defendant, Canada, moved for an adjournment of Phase III of a complex treaty land entitlement action, scheduled for May 3, 2021.

Canada argued unexpected difficulties and delays in trial preparation, largely due to lack of complete documentary production by the Plaintiffs and COVID-19-related closures affecting access to government repositories and expert witness retention.

Despite opposition from the Plaintiffs, the Federal Court granted the adjournment.

The Court found that forcing Canada to trial without necessary documents to quantify damages and counter expert evidence would be unfair and prejudicial.

Phase III was adjourned to dates after November 30, 2021, with each party to bear its own costs.

In Phase III of a treaty land entitlement action, Canada moved to adjourn the trial and to compel answers to discovery questions.

The Blood Tribe brought a cross-motion to dismiss Canada's motions or strike the supporting affidavit of Lynda Sturney, arguing that Canada's objections during her cross-examination defeated its purpose.

The Court ruled that most of Canada's objections based on litigation privilege were proper and that mere reference to privileged matters in an affidavit does not constitute implied waiver.

The Court ordered the affiant to produce one written communication and answer one question about COVID-19 restriction timing, but otherwise dismissed the Blood Tribe's cross-motion with costs.

The defendant moved to compel the plaintiffs to answer written examination questions concerning the historical financial, agricultural, and natural resource development on the Blood Reserve since 1882.

The plaintiffs had objected on grounds of relevance and proportionality.

The Federal Court found the requested information relevant to the damages assessment for breach of treaty land entitlement and proportional to the substantial claim.

The motion to compel was granted.

An employee filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner seeking access to her personal employment information after being dismissed.

The employer provided most records but withheld some, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Privacy Commissioner ordered production of the privileged documents pursuant to s. 12 of PIPEDA, which grants powers to compel records in the same manner as a superior court.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Commissioner cannot compel production of privileged documents, as clear and explicit statutory language is required to abrogate solicitor-client privilege, which PIPEDA lacks.