Glynis Adele Evans

In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.

The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.

Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.

The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.

This motion sought approval for the notice of certification and notice plan in a class proceeding concerning toxic mold in housing on Long Lake No. 58 First Nation's reserve.

The court approved the proposed notice, finding it clear and easy to understand, and the opt-out procedure straightforward.

The court also approved the notice plan, which included delivery by mail, posting on Facebook, and at community offices, and confirmed that notice only in English was appropriate given the class members' language.

The representative plaintiff, Narcise Alex Kakegabon, brought a motion to vary the certification order in a class proceeding concerning toxic mould on Long Lake No. 58 First Nation's reserve.

The motion sought to remove Kim Orr Barristers P.C. as class counsel and appoint Turan Law Office P.C. as new class counsel, along with ancillary relief.

The plaintiff cited a loss of confidence in the previous counsel due to lack of progress, noting that approximately half of the class members had passed away since certification.

The court, applying the principles from Fantl v. Transamerica, considered the competence of the proposed counsel, the propriety of the choice, and potential prejudice to the class.

Neither the defendant nor the previous class counsel opposed the motion.

The court found no concerns regarding the proposed counsel's competence or the plaintiff's choice, and no prejudice to the class.

The motion was granted.

Batchewana First Nation sought to be joined as a necessary party plaintiff or, alternatively, for leave to intervene as an added party plaintiff in the Robinson Superior Treaty action, which concerns claims for augmented annuities.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Batchewana, a beneficiary of the Robinson Huron Treaty, was not a necessary party to the Superior action, as its claim for augmented annuities based on "just claims" to lands within the Superior Territory was inconsistent with its prior position in the Huron action and did not directly relate to the Superior Treaty's interpretation or compensation.

The court also found that Batchewana did not meet the criteria for intervention and that its proposed intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the complex, multi-stage litigation.

Namaygoosisagagun Ojibway Nation sought leave to intervene in the Robinson Superior Treaty action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs and Gull Bay First Nation opposed the intervention, arguing that Namaygoosisagagun was not a recognized band and lacked a collective interest.

The Crown defendants consented with provisos to prevent litigation of Namaygoosisagagun's band status or s. 35 rights within this proceeding.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding that Namaygoosisagagun had a contingent collective interest that met the low threshold for intervention, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting them from seeking to prove or determine issues related to their band status, s. 35 rights, or beneficiary status under the Treaty, and from making submissions conflicting with the plaintiffs' position on distribution.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking declarations and partial summary judgment based on res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process in a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office, the court determined costs.

The moving party had sought numerous orders asserting that findings from a prior Federal Court decision conclusively established elements of liability against federal officials involved in an environmental review of a highway project.

The court held the motion was overly complex, repeatedly amended, and entirely unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from appellate authorities, the court concluded that the defendants’ claimed costs were modest given the scale and duration of the proceedings.

Costs of $309,844.95 were awarded to the defendants.