3 total
Compensation decision upheld under honour-of-the-Crown review despite process deficiencies.
In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.
The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.
Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.
The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.
An unrecognized First Nation was granted leave to intervene in a treaty action to protect its contingent collective interest, subject to strict conditions.
Namaygoosisagagun Ojibway Nation sought leave to intervene in the Robinson Superior Treaty action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs and Gull Bay First Nation opposed the intervention, arguing that Namaygoosisagagun was not a recognized band and lacked a collective interest.
The Crown defendants consented with provisos to prevent litigation of Namaygoosisagagun's band status or s. 35 rights within this proceeding.
The court granted leave to intervene, finding that Namaygoosisagagun had a contingent collective interest that met the low threshold for intervention, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting them from seeking to prove or determine issues related to their band status, s. 35 rights, or beneficiary status under the Treaty, and from making submissions conflicting with the plaintiffs' position on distribution.
Motion to add corporate owner as a personal respondent in a human rights application granted.
The applicant in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested to amend her application to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, correct the corporate respondent's name, and amend the remedies sought.
The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and Persaud and found it fair and just to add the owner as a personal respondent, noting that his conduct was the central issue in the case and he had constructive notice of the application.
The requests to correct the corporate name and amend the remedies were granted on consent.
