Lori Kruse

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.

During a case management conference, the applicant, BridgePoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I, argued that its application to determine whether its loan agreements with the respondent, Rudolf Steinberg, applied to his accident benefits settlement was moot.

BridgePoint contended that outstanding legal fees, which had priority, exceeded the funds held in court, leaving nothing for BridgePoint.

The court found that because a portion of the legal fees had already been paid, up to $184,983.13 might remain available, meaning the application was not moot.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application proceed to a hearing and directed that a related Toronto action be transferred to Thunder Bay to be case managed together.

The appellants sought a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action for misrepresentation related to a property sale.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding no duty to defend.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in relying on an "entire agreement" clause to deny coverage for negligent misrepresentation claims.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal on an alternative ground: the appellants' failure to provide prompt notice of the claim to the insurer, which constituted a breach of the policy and was not eligible for relief against forfeiture.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing of an application by the applicant for a Class A licence for the removal of aggregate under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The order establishes the organization of the hearing, pre-hearing requirements, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The defendants, Emilio and Kristi Feletto, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs' claim arose from the purchase of a residential property allegedly built with major structural defects.

The court struck two subparagraphs against Emilio with leave to amend, but declined to strike the remaining impugned paragraphs, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims in negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation would fail.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of the motion.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a subrogated fire loss claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The fire occurred after a contractor left staining materials in a plastic bag on a deck, allegedly causing spontaneous combustion.

The defendants argued the claim was discovered immediately after the fire in August 2008, making the September 2010 action out of time.

The court held the claim was not discoverable until the investigation revealed that stain-soaked rags likely caused the fire, which occurred on September 25, 2008.

Because the statement of claim was issued within two years of that date, the action was timely and summary judgment was refused.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing claims against the respondent, Toivonen, arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding there was some evidence upon which a trier of fact could conclude that the plaintiffs' vehicle struck the respondent's vehicle before being struck by the appellants' vehicle.

The summary judgment was set aside and costs were awarded to the appellants.