3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld a judgment crediting a band member for leasehold improvements and awarding aggravated damages for an improper eviction.
A band member leased lands from the Walpole Island First Nations Band Council to operate a hunting camp and made substantial improvements including constructing a lodge.
The central dispute concerned whether the band member was entitled to credit against outstanding rental payments for the cost of improvements made.
The trial judge awarded credit of $532,500 for improvements plus a $40,000 deposit, less $430,000 in rent owing, resulting in a judgment of $142,500 in the band member's favour.
The band appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to apply section 2(3) of the Indian Act, which requires Band Council resolutions for binding arrangements.
The appeal court upheld the trial judgment, finding that the Band Council had undertaken to credit the band member for leasehold improvements and that the band member was entitled to aggravated damages for an improper eviction.
Tribunal denies applicant's requests for reconsideration, amendment, consolidation, and adjournment on the eve of hearing.
The applicant requested an order to reconsider and set aside a previous interim decision that dismissed certain allegations as untimely, to amend the application, to consolidate it with another application, and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.
The Tribunal denied all requests, finding no grounds for reconsideration, noting that the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondent and delay the hearing, finding no basis to consolidate with a deferred application, and concluding that a recent change of counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.
Untimely human rights allegations dismissed for delay; pursuing grievance not a valid good faith explanation.
The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal due to delay.
The applicant filed the application outside the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code for several allegations.
The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were not part of a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, noting that pursuing a grievance is generally not a valid explanation.
The untimely allegations were dismissed, while the timely allegations were allowed to proceed.
