5 total
Motion to compel answers on cross-examination dismissed; questions sought premature discovery and privileged settlement details.
The Town of Fort Frances, as plaintiff by counterclaim, brought a motion to compel the First Nations, Canada, and Ontario to answer questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for an upcoming summary judgment motion.
The refused questions sought the defendants' legal positions on historical documents and the disclosure of a 2018 Settlement Agreement between the First Nations, Canada, and Ontario.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the questions regarding historical documents were in the nature of discovery and beyond the proper scope of cross-examination on an affidavit.
The court also held that the 2018 Settlement Agreement was protected by settlement privilege and did not need to be disclosed, as it did not change the ongoing litigation landscape of the Town's counterclaim.
Motion to intervene granted as proposed intervenor had direct interest and shared common issues.
The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.
The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.
The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.
Application for judicial review dismissed as permit applications for existing dams did not trigger duty to consult.
The applicant First Nation brought an application for judicial review alleging that the Crown's failure to decide applications for Permits to Take Water (PTTW) for existing hydroelectric dams breached the duty to consult and accommodate.
The Crown subsequently amended the Ontario Water Resources Act to exempt the dams from the PTTW requirement, as they were already regulated under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the PTTW applications did not trigger the duty to consult because they sought only to continue historical operations without introducing novel adverse impacts.
Furthermore, the legislative amendments were not unconstitutional as they did not remove the sole trigger for consultation, which remained available under the overlapping regulatory regime.
Summary judgment granted placing children in extended society care; access issue directed to focused hearing.
The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.
The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.
The children were ordered into extended society care.
The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.
However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.
Motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer for a 7-year-old child dismissed.
The mother in a child protection proceeding brought a motion requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for her 7-year-old child.
The Society opposed the motion, noting it was seeking Extended Society Care with no access and a summary judgment motion was already scheduled.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child was under the age of 8 and developmentally immature, and the mother failed to provide evidence that the appointment would assist the court or the child in any specific way.
