Jason B. Gratl

The Crown brought applications for the forfeiture of hundreds of forged paintings attributed to Norval Morrisseau.

The Estate of Norval Morrisseau brought a motion seeking standing as a party or leave to intervene, as well as leave to file expert evidence regarding the adverse effects of preserving the forgeries.

The court found that the Estate had a valid interest in the property and granted it leave to intervene.

The Estate's participation was limited to leading expert evidence on the harms caused by the forgeries and making submissions grounded in the evidentiary record.

The Crown applied to hold joint forfeiture hearings in multiple related prosecutions involving over 1,000 allegedly forged artworks seized from third parties.

The third parties and proposed intervenors either took no position or did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding that a joint hearing involving common third parties, evidence, and legal issues would be the most efficient process and ensure a consistent application of the law.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action on behalf of Indigenous female offenders, alleging that the Correctional Service of Canada's use of the Custody Rating Scale and other assessment tools improperly overclassified them into higher security levels.

The Federal Court dismissed the certification motion.

The Court found that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for negligence or breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Furthermore, the Court held that the proposed common issues were intrinsically individualistic, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, and the proposed representative plaintiffs were unsuitable.

In a proposed class proceeding regarding the use of the Custody Rating Scale by the Correctional Service of Canada, the Defendant Attorney General of Canada moved to extend the time to file its Statement of Defence until after the disposition of the certification motion.

The Federal Court granted the motion, finding that preparing the defence before certification would require substantial resources that might be duplicated or wasted if the claims were later reformulated or not certified, and that the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice.

A Métis federal inmate challenged correctional authorities’ use of psychological and actuarial risk tools for Indigenous offenders, alleging statutory and Charter breaches.

The Court held that authorities breached their duty under s. 24(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by continuing to rely on the tools without taking reasonable steps to confirm validity for Indigenous persons.

The Court declined to find violations of ss. 7 or 15 of the Charter on the evidentiary record.

Declaratory relief was granted in light of the prolonged and ineffective grievance history, but no broader injunctive remedy was ordered.