John Paul Robert Cassan

The Thessalon First Nation (TFN) sought an interim injunction to prevent The Municipality of Huron Shores from proceeding with a tax sale of lands TFN claims are part of its reservation.

TFN asserts an historical error in the 1850 Huron Treaty survey.

The Municipality had not collected taxes on the land since 2000, agreeing with TFN's position, but initiated a tax sale due to significant arrears and provincial levies.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious question to be tried regarding Aboriginal land title and the Honour of the Crown, irreparable harm if the land were sold, and that the balance of inconvenience favored TFN, especially considering the potential for the Province to mitigate its costs.

The interim injunction was granted, halting the tax sale, with a further hearing scheduled to allow provincial and federal governments to make submissions.

In an application concerning hydro-electric property tax exemptions under section 3(1), paragraph 18 of the Assessment Act, the court determined that most disputed station components qualified as machinery and equipment used for producing electricity for sale to the general public.

The court rejected a narrow interpretation requiring direct transformation use and held all power produced at the stations met the sale-to-general-public requirement.

The court also held the applicant could not rely on paragraph 17 as an alternative exemption route.

Due conflicting expert evidence, the scope of exempt foundations required further expert process and a trial on that issue.

The appellant appealed a decision determining he had no ownership interest in a disputed parcel of land.

The appellant argued the application judge lacked jurisdiction to decide ownership, but the Court of Appeal noted the appellant's own Notice of Application sought a declaration of ownership.

The Court found ample evidence supporting the application judge's decision, as the appellant's title only conveyed part of Lot 4, and the survey he relied upon erroneously included part of Lot 1.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions in a trespass action.

The Court of Appeal held there was evidence supporting the findings and no reasonable basis for appellate intervention.

The limitation defence failed because the trespass was found to be continuing, and the Statute Labour defence failed because the factual premise for that defence was rejected at trial.

The award of punitive damages was upheld and the appeal was dismissed with costs.