Susan Vella

Following a successful application to add two institutions to Schedule “F” of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the moving parties sought legal costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court interpreted Article 12.01(6) of the Settlement Agreement, which allows Canada to provide requestors with “reasonable legal costs and disbursements.” The court held that this standard is distinct from traditional indemnity scales used in civil procedure and requires reimbursement only for costs reasonably necessary to the application.

After reviewing the accounts, the court excluded certain expenses and reduced amounts where senior counsel performed work that could reasonably have been completed by junior counsel.

The court fixed reasonable legal costs and disbursements accordingly.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to stay an order adding two schools to Schedule F of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement pending appeal.

The moving party argued the order triggered an automatic stay under Rule 63.01(1) or warranted a discretionary stay under Rule 63.02(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the order did not create a fixed debt obligation and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, as a stay would prejudice former students' ability to apply for compensation.

A cross-motion to determine the effective date of the order found the notice of appeal was delivered out of time, but the court extended the time to appeal and expedited the hearing.

The appellant doctor appealed an interlocutory order striking portions of his statement of defence and counterclaim, as well as portions of an affidavit.

The underlying action was brought by the respondent patient to enforce a settlement agreement.

The appellant alleged the settlement was obtained by fraud, relying on a sworn statement by the respondent recanting her allegations of sexual assault made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act creates an absolute bar to the admissibility of documents prepared for CPSO proceedings in civil actions, even where fraud is alleged.