Catherine Boies Parker

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent for a partial judgment to give effect to a settlement agreement regarding past annuities payable under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

The settlement resolves claims that the Crown failed to fulfill its promise to augment the annuity over time.

Under the agreement, the federal and provincial Crowns will pay $10 billion to the plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement agreement and granted the partial judgment.

The Crown appealed the Stage One and Stage Two decisions regarding the interpretation of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties of 1850.

The trial judge found that the Treaties' augmentation clause imposed a mandatory obligation on the Crown to increase the perpetual annuities if the economic circumstances of the ceded territories warranted it, without a hard cap of $4 per person.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown has an obligation under the honour of the Crown to diligently implement the augmentation promise and that its discretion is not unfettered.

The Court unanimously set aside the trial judge's finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and her specific remedial directives regarding a 'fair share' of net resource revenues.

The Court also unanimously dismissed the Crown's limitations defence.

The Court split on the standard of review for historical treaties and whether the trial judge made extricable errors of law in her interpretation, but the majority upheld her core interpretation of the augmentation clause.

The moving party, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, sought a stay pending appeal of orders permitting the destruction of the SADRE database, which contains records from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The moving party also sought procedural directions, including expediting the appeal and guidance on a sealing order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it unnecessary as the database was preserved until December 2020 and the appeal could be expedited.

The court granted the procedural relief, expediting the appeal, allowing an extended factum, and providing directions on the scope of the sealing order.

The Province of British Columbia referred the constitutionality of proposed amendments to the Environmental Management Act to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The proposed amendments would have introduced a hazardous substance permit system regulating the presence of heavy oil in the province, directly impacting the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The BCCA held that the proposed amendments fell outside provincial legislative authority because their pith and substance — placing conditions on, and if necessary prohibiting, carriage of heavy oil through an interprovincial undertaking — related to Parliament's jurisdiction over federal undertakings under s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

The Chief Adjudicator of the Indian Residential Schools Independent Assessment Process brought a Request for Direction regarding the notice program for the disposition of highly confidential records.

The court previously ordered the destruction of these records subject to a 15-year retention period during which claimants could choose to archive them at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The main issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to order Canada to fund the participation of the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Representatives, and the NCTR in the notice program.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Class Proceedings Act and its inherent supervisory powers, and ordered Canada to provide funding, albeit at reduced amounts reflecting the organizations' limited roles.

The applicants, female soccer players participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding the requirement to play on artificial turf.

They subsequently sought to amend their application to include allegations of reprisal and requested an interim remedy ordering the respondents to cease and desist from threatening reprisals.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, concluding that a cease and desist order was unnecessary because section 8 of the Human Rights Code already provides clear protection against reprisal.