Insiyah Kanjee

The Crown appealed the Stage One and Stage Two decisions regarding the interpretation of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties of 1850.

The trial judge found that the Treaties' augmentation clause imposed a mandatory obligation on the Crown to increase the perpetual annuities if the economic circumstances of the ceded territories warranted it, without a hard cap of $4 per person.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown has an obligation under the honour of the Crown to diligently implement the augmentation promise and that its discretion is not unfettered.

The Court unanimously set aside the trial judge's finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and her specific remedial directives regarding a 'fair share' of net resource revenues.

The Court also unanimously dismissed the Crown's limitations defence.

The Court split on the standard of review for historical treaties and whether the trial judge made extricable errors of law in her interpretation, but the majority upheld her core interpretation of the augmentation clause.

The court addressed scheduling for a package of motions, including the defendant's motion to strike and the plaintiff's motions to add parties and seek leave to plead malicious prosecution.

The court determined that the two hours booked were insufficient and that the motions needed to be sequenced, with pleadings finalized before the motion to strike could be heard.

The plaintiff's motion to lift a publication ban from related criminal proceedings was directed to the criminal court judge who issued it.

The remaining motions were adjourned and scheduled for future dates.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded all-inclusive costs of $200,000 to the successful respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership, against the appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.

The decision considered that this was the second level of appeal, the issues involved, and the respondent's success.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision upholding an arbitration award.

The arbitration panel found that Ontario and OLG breached a Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement with the First Nations Partnership by unilaterally stopping payments of non-gaming revenue and complimentary services ("Comps") after outsourcing non-gaming amenities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower court's decision that the Agreement was breached and the damages awarded were appropriate.

The court declined to rule on the standard of review for commercial arbitration decisions post-Vavilov, finding the outcome would be the same under either standard, and also declined to address the "honour of the Crown" doctrine as it was not determinative.

The self-represented defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim filed a counterclaim against numerous parties, including government ministries and officials, alleging complicity in his wrongful conviction for civil contempt.

The court conducted a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the claims against the government defendants, finding they were bound to fail due to judicial immunity and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a subsisting court order.

The claims against the police and private investigators were not dismissed, though the court strongly advised the litigant to seek legal advice to properly plead his causes of action.

The defendant by counterclaim, Hon. Doug Downey, requested the court to dismiss the counterclaim against him under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the counterclaim contained no allegations of fact against several defendants by counterclaim, including Hon. Doug Downey, the Ministry of the Attorney General, and others.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff by counterclaim to provide written submissions explaining why the claims against these parties should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the counterclaim against them pending the outcome.

The defendants submitted written requests to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the statement of claim to be incomprehensible, indefensible, and incapable of a coherent response.

The court concluded that the claim was frivolous and an abuse of process on its face, and dismissed the action.

In a case management conference, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the Discovery Timetable to allow more time to deliver written questions arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 additional documents by the defendant.

The defendants did not dispute the need for additional time but questioned the structure of the questioning stages.

The court granted the amendment, extending the deadlines for the delivery of follow-up written questions and answers, and maintained the remainder of the timetable.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

The 12th Case Management Conference addressed the timetable for expert reports and pleading amendments in a complex Indigenous litigation.

The Plaintiff sought a simultaneous exchange of expert reports, arguing for procedural reciprocity and efficiency.

The Defendants advocated for a sequential timetable, asserting it would allow them to better understand and respond to the Plaintiff's case, aligning with common practice in similar complex litigation.

The court adopted the Defendants' sequential timetable for expert reports, finding no basis to deviate from established practice in complex land claims.

The court also granted leave for the Plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, with the formal filing deferred due to COVID-19 court closures.

The appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Ontario, appealed an arbitration decision that found they breached the Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement (GRSFA) by ceasing to share certain non-gaming and complimentary revenues with the respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The court found the arbitration panel's contractual interpretation was reasonable, firmly rooted in the agreement's text and surrounding circumstances, and that the honour of the Crown doctrine was correctly applied to the government-to-government agreement.