Kisha Chatterjee

The applicants, a First Nation and its former Chief, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) and (h) seeking declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Crown's Duty to Consult and Accommodate.

The application arose in the context of the proposed Marten Falls Community Access Road in the Ring of Fire region.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to rewrite legislation or provide a de facto reference on how the Crown should discharge its duty in the future without a live factual dispute.

The court held that the application did not raise a justiciable issue and was not properly brought under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving First Nation sought interlocutory relief to restrain mining exploration activities within a culturally and spiritually significant area of its traditional territory and to prevent approval of a separate exploration permit application.

The court held that interlocutory declaratory relief against the Crown and the Director was barred by statute, and that relief against another prospector was premature while his permit application remained on temporary hold.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework in the context of asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights and the Crown’s duty to consult, the court found serious issues respecting meaningful consultation and potential infringement of s. 35 rights, irreparable harm to sacred, burial, harvesting, and cultural sites, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the status quo.

An interim injunction was granted against the permit-holder companies, and the moving party was relieved from the usual undertaking as to damages.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario partially allowed an appeal by the family of a deceased First Nations child, Brody Meekis, who died of strep throat following an allegedly flawed coronial investigation.

The family's civil claim, which included allegations of misfeasance in public office, negligent supervision, and Charter s. 15 discrimination, had been entirely struck by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal reinstated the misfeasance in public office and Charter claims, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court clarified that discriminatory conduct, even within discretionary powers, can constitute unlawful action for misfeasance, and that adverse impact discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter can arise from the application of seemingly neutral laws that disproportionately disadvantage protected groups.

The claim for negligent supervision remained struck.

Six groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal concerning the Ontario government's 'Student Choice Initiative', which allowed students to opt out of certain ancillary fees.

The underlying application quashed the government directives.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to all six groups, finding that the appeal raises issues with far-reaching impacts on publicly-funded universities and colleges, and that each proposed intervener would provide useful and distinct perspectives without causing injustice to the parties.

A case management teleconference was held regarding two related applications involving Indigenous child and family services.

Counsel for the moving party did not attend due to an administrative error by court staff.

The court noted ongoing discussions to convert one of the applications into an action and directed the parties to resolve the issue or bring a motion.

The court also addressed scheduling, noting that a return date before the end of 2020 would require proof of readiness and urgency, and encouraged the parties to agree on a schedule.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motions for a stay of a Ministerial Directive, the court determined the costs of the motions.

The intervenor's request for costs was denied, as the opposition to the stay was already mounted by the respondents.

The respondent Tikinagan sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $108,000.

The court found this amount excessive, noting the public interest nature of the case, the overlap of work with the main applications, and the principle of proportionality.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 payable to Tikinagan, with each applicant responsible for $25,000.

This decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses three related matters.

The first involved an appeal in Blanchard v. Georgina (Town), where the panel considered a motion to review a security for costs order and an ex parte motion by the Town of Georgina to dismiss the appeal for non-payment of security.

The second matter concerned a proposed appeal in Grand Chief v. Phillips et al, specifically a review of an order denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The third matter was a general review of a prior order by Thorburn J.A. The court dismissed the request for an adjournment and allowed a non-lawyer spokesperson to represent one of the parties.

The court found no basis to stay or consolidate the appeals based on aboriginal land claims.

The Georgina appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the security for costs order, and the review of the denial of extension of time for the Grand Chief v. Phillips appeal was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the unsuccessful parties in both instances.

The applicants, two Indigenous representative groups, brought motions for a stay of a Minister's Directive and Designations that authorized three children's aid societies to provide child and family services in Thunder Bay.

The applicants argued the Directive interfered with their inherent right to self-government and was issued without proper consultation or statutory compliance.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motions for a stay were dismissed.

The applicants, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care and Fort William First Nation, brought a motion for a stay of a Minister's Directive and Designation pending their applications for judicial review.

The Directive designated Tikinagan Child and Family Services to provide child and family services to certain Indigenous children in Thunder Bay.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the court concluded the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion was dismissed, with written reasons to follow.

The applicants, two student associations, sought judicial review to quash the Minister's 'Student Choice Initiative' directives, which required colleges and universities to allow students to opt out of student association fees.

The Divisional Court found the directives justiciable, rejecting the government's arguments that they were immune from review as core policy decisions or exercises of the Crown's prerogative spending power.

The Court held that the directives were unlawful because they conflicted with the statutory schemes governing colleges and universities, which protect the autonomy of universities and the normal activities of college student associations.

The application was granted and the directives were quashed.

The applicant First Nation sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Exploration granting a mining exploration permit to a corporate respondent on lands within the applicant's traditional territory.

The applicant argued the Crown failed to properly discharge its duty to consult.

The Divisional Court found that the Crown and its delegate had created clear expectations for a community meeting and a Memorandum of Understanding, but abruptly changed course without explanation to expedite the permit for commercial reasons.

The court held that the consultation process lacked genuine engagement and failed to maintain the honour of the Crown.

The application was granted, the permit was set aside, and the matter was remitted for adequate consultation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary/summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to call in or provide any explanation for his absence.

The respondent and proposed respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

A reporter requested the names, billing amounts, and specialties of the top 100 physicians billing OHIP.

The Ministry refused to disclose the names, but the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the information was not 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Medical Association and affected physicians sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Adjudicator's conclusion that OHIP payments revealed professional rather than personal information was reasonable.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario and a group of affected physicians brought procedural motions in three related applications for judicial review concerning an order to release physician billing information.

The court ordered the applications to be heard together and permitted counsel to access the private Record of Proceedings upon signing an undertaking.

The court denied a request to allow Toronto Star representatives access to the private record.

The court also ruled that the applicant physicians could not remain completely anonymous to the court; their identities must be filed under seal, and generalized, non-identifying demographic information must be made public.

The moving party, applicants, and respondents sought a consent order to add another physician to a judicial review application under a pseudonym.

The court declined to grant the order, noting that notice to the media is generally required before granting any form of publication ban or anonymity order.

The court also raised concerns about the current title of proceedings, which listed the applicants as 'Several Physicians Affected Directly by the Order' without any identifying information in the court file.

The parties were directed to bring a formal motion with notice to the media.

The interveners in a judicial review application concerning the Crown's duty to consult brought a motion for a Kelly v. Canada Order to add 28 Indian Bands as parties.

The applicants opposed the motion, arguing it was offensive to Aboriginal custom and unnecessary as they were the true rights holders.

The court granted the motion, finding that adding the bands as party respondents was necessary to ensure all potential rights holders were before the court and to avoid the risk of multiple proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant First Nation sought an interim injunction to prohibit provincial ministries from authorizing a wind farm development on its traditional territory, pending judicial review regarding the Crown's duty to consult.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the Director had not yet made a decision on whether to issue the renewable energy permit.

Without a decision, the court could not determine if there was a serious issue to be tried or if irreparable harm would occur.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic discrimination by the respondent regarding the recognition of barbering as a licensed trade and the hairstyling apprenticeship curriculum.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was filed within the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify a specific incident of discrimination within the one-year period prior to filing.

As the applicant conceded he had no excuse for the delay, the Tribunal concluded there was no good faith explanation for the late filing and dismissed the application as untimely.

H20 Power Limited Partnership and Resolute FP Canada Inc. brought a motion for leave to intervene as added parties in an application for judicial review concerning the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate the Anishinaabe Nation regarding hydroelectric contracts.

The applicants opposed full intervention, arguing it should be limited to the issue of relief.

The court found that the proposed interveners had a direct interest in the contracts and could provide a useful contribution regarding the operation of the generating stations.

Leave to intervene was granted, subject to conditions limiting their evidence and argument to avoid duplication and delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on ancestry, ethnic origin, and age, as well as reprisal, primarily related to property and tax disputes with the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant had no evidence to link the respondents' alleged conduct to any Code-protected grounds or to reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.