3 total
Motion to intervene in representative action granted to included First Nation but denied to excluded collectives.
Several Indigenous groups brought motions to intervene in a Rule 12.08 representation motion concerning an Aboriginal title claim to lands along the Ottawa River.
The court granted leave to intervene to the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, finding they had a direct interest as part of the collective the plaintiffs seek to represent.
The court dismissed the motion by the Nine Algonquin Collectives, concluding they did not meet the criteria for intervention under Rule 13.01, as they are not part of the proposed collective and their participation would unduly delay the proceeding.
Representative Aboriginal title action requires prior authorization under Rule 12.08.
The defendants brought a motion seeking a direction that the plaintiffs obtain court authorization under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before continuing a representative action asserting Aboriginal title and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The action sought declarations concerning Aboriginal title to federally held lands along the Ottawa River, including lands in the national capital region.
The plaintiffs argued that a representation motion should not be required in Aboriginal title litigation and that imposing such a requirement would undermine reconciliation and access to justice.
The court held that Rule 12.08 applies to representative proceedings advancing s. 35 claims and requires prior judicial authorization regardless of the substantive nature of the claim.
The plaintiffs were directed to bring a Rule 12.08 motion to seek authorization to proceed as representatives of the proposed collective.
H&C refusal set aside due to unreasonable findings on supporting evidence and children's best interests.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision denying their application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable.
The officer failed to provide coherent explanations for rejecting evidence of the principal applicant's estrangement from her family and evidence of country conditions provided by a former ambassador's spouse.
The officer also made findings unsupported by the record, including incorrectly concluding the children could choose to remain in Canada with their father despite being subject to removal.
