Madeline Torrie

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals of both the Attorney General of Canada and Katherine Cannon from a trial judgment finding them liable for abuse and loss of Indigenous culture suffered by the respondents, three sisters.

The court held that Canada owed an ad hoc fiduciary duty to the respondents as de facto wards in a unique interprovincial context, and that Canada breached this duty by shelving a plan to return the children to their Indigenous maternal family.

The court also upheld findings of negligence and joint and several liability for damages.

The court clarified the limits of sui generis fiduciary duty, the requirements for ad hoc fiduciary duty, and the application of proximity and foreseeability in negligence.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the release of the Canada RFD Decision in the Fontaine litigation.

The court considered whether the unsuccessful Respondents should be awarded costs, despite not prevailing on the motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ written submissions and the relevant legal principles, ultimately concluding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a costs award to the unsuccessful party.

The court declined to order costs of the hearing.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of appeals by the Attorney General of Ontario, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, Alberta Lemon, and the Estate of Barbara Twining, and the allowance of the cross-appeal by the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.

The Court orders the Town and the Families to pay costs to the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Town to pay costs to Canada, finding the amounts sought reasonable in light of the complexity and significance of the appeal.

The requestors brought a motion to summon the former Chief Adjudicator of the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat to provide evidence at an upcoming hearing of a Request for Directions (RFD) brought by Canada.

Canada's RFD sought to strike the requestors' own RFD regarding compliance with ancillary orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the former Chief Adjudicator's evidence regarding his conduct or failure to bring an RFD was not relevant to the narrow interpretation and procedural issues raised in Canada's RFD.

The Attorney General of Canada sought summary judgment to dismiss a claim by Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation, arguing that their request to re-delineate reserve boundaries constituted a collateral attack and abuse of process on a 1889 judgment (Francis).

The First Nation argued the Francis decision was unfair as they were not an equal party.

The court dismissed Canada's motion, exercising its residual discretion to allow the claim to proceed to trial, emphasizing that while re-litigation doctrines are important, justice and reconciliation, particularly for Indigenous rights, can override them when there was a structural unfairness in prior proceedings.

The requestors brought a motion seeking answers to 142 questions refused by Canada during an out-of-court cross-examination of a government affiant.

The cross-examination arose in the context of Canada's request for directions to strike the requestors' motion regarding compliance with the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The court largely upheld Canada's refusals on the bases of relevance, proportionality, privilege, and speculation, but ordered Canada to answer six specific questions of fact.

This appeal concerned the denial of Indian status to Sharon Bocchini and her late mother, Bertha Isbister, descendants of St. Pierre Cook.

The Indian Registrar denied status based on Mr. Cook's historical receipt of "half-breed scrip" and withdrawal from treaty in the 1880s.

The court found that the Registrar erred in law by applying the wrong version of the Indian Act (1888 instead of 1886) to determine Mr. Cook's lawful withdrawal from treaty.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors of fact in the Registrar's conclusion that Mr. Cook lawfully received scrip, noting he was a minor (17 years old) at the time of application and sale, and that the Registrar failed to adequately consider evidence of widespread scrip fraud affecting the Sandy Bay Band.

The appeal was allowed, and the removal of Sharon Bocchini and Bertha Isbister from the Indian Register was reversed, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.

The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.

These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).

Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.

The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.

The Missanabie Cree First Nation appealed a trial decision that determined the "crystallization date" for calculating their Treaty No. 9 reserve land entitlement was 1906, the year they adhered to the Treaty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly interpreted the Treaty's reserve clause and the common intention of the parties, and properly distinguished other treaty cases.

The court also addressed ancillary issues, admitting fresh evidence of a settlement between Canada and MCFN, lifting a sealing order on the settlement, and dismissing Canada's abuse of process motion to dismiss the appeal against it.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment in a land claim case.

Following an earlier declaration that a substantial portion of Sauble Beach was reserved for the sole use and benefit of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and forms part of Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29, the court considered whether to grant a life interest in certain 'Disputed Lots' to current family title owners (Landowners).

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and Canada opposed this.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to impose a proprietary interest contrary to the Indian Act and Constitution Act, as reserve land is inalienable.

It also found that granting such an interest would not advance reconciliation.

Consequently, the temporary delay in the original declaration that no third parties have an interest in the land was terminated, making the declaration effective immediately.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation brought an action seeking a declaration that a 1.4-mile strip of Sauble Beach (the Disputed Beach) is part of their unsurrendered reserve land under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The court found that the Imperial Crown's surveyor, Charles Rankin, improperly marked the northern terminus of the reserve's eastern boundary further south than the Treaty stipulated, depriving the First Nation of the promised coastline.

The court held that the Imperial Crown and the federal Crown breached their sui generis fiduciary duties and acted inconsistently with the honour of the Crown by failing to properly survey, protect, and preserve the reserve.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the First Nation's claim was defeated by Crown patents, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Limitations Act, laches, dedication, or proprietary estoppel.

The court declared that the Disputed Beach remains unsurrendered reserve land for the sole use and benefit of the First Nation.

This is an appeal management endorsement providing directions for an appeal concerning the determination of the Missanabie Cree population for Treaty 9 reserve entitlement.

The endorsement addresses issues with exhibit books, factum lengths, electronic document formats, a timetable for materials, motions for leave to intervene, oral hearing compendia, and sets a hearing length and date.

It also provides general notice for intervention motions.