Maria Vujnovic

At a trial management conference, an issue arose as to whether the plaintiff's pleadings in an Indigenous land claim action sought the recovery of Crown lands or merely monetary relief for alleged breaches of duty.

The court ruled that determining this issue before trial was necessary.

Analyzing the pleadings, the court found the claim exclusively sought equitable compensation, damages, and accounting, and did not properly plead any present-day interest in or right to recover actual Crown land in the Haldimand Tract.

During pre-trial examinations in an Indigenous land claim, the plaintiff cross-examined the Crown's expert historian.

The Crown and Ontario objected to several questions, arguing they exceeded the expert's scope of expertise regarding pre-confederation Ontario land systems and strayed into Crown-Indigenous relations.

The court ruled on six objections, allowing questions that sought historical context for documents raised in chief, but sustaining objections to questions seeking opinions on matters outside the expert's specific research, such as the Indigenous perspective on the Crown's protective role.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Indigenous land claims.

The court provided directions regarding preparatory materials for upcoming out-of-court expert examinations, including the appointment of a hybrid commissioner and deadlines for expert report summaries and legal arguments.

The court also addressed a dispute regarding the scope of cross-examination of an expert witness, directing the parties to narrow issues concerning adversity of interest before seeking further judicial determination.

Finally, the court confirmed the appointment of a pre-trial judge and scheduled the next case conference.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses procedural issues in a complex litigation, specifically disputes regarding the admissibility of expert reports and estimates of trial length.

The court noted progress in resolving these issues and scheduled a further case conference to revisit them and receive an update on an expert witness's health.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation.

It sets a timetable for a forthcoming motion by the Attorney General of Canada regarding the taking of evidence from certain witnesses before trial.

The court also noted Ontario's expected late delivery of expert reports, discussed the parties' differing estimates for trial length and scheduled a follow-up conference, and provided guidance on addressing concerns about trial presentation software (CaseLines).

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation, including the taking of expert evidence before trial, Canada's missed deadline for an expert report, the appointment of pre-trial and trial judges, the use of trial presentation software, and Ontario's Crown immunity defence.

The court scheduled a motion for expert evidence and provided directions for parties to prepare a trial timetable and discuss judicial assistance.

The plaintiff, Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, brought a motion to amend its statement of claim in a long-standing action concerning the Haldimand Tract.

The defendants did not oppose the amendments but sought extensive time to deliver responding expert reports.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the claim that pleaded breaches of duty 'by example'.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that pleading by example was appropriate given the plaintiff's claim for a complete accounting.

The court granted the motion to amend and set a timeline for the defendants to deliver responding expert evidence, rejecting the defendants' request for a multi-year extension based on their internal retention processes.

Costs of $90,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion seeking leave to examine three expert witnesses before trial.

The parties largely resolved the motion, leaving the court to adjudicate the quantum of interim costs payable by Canada to the plaintiff (Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians) and the costs of the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in interim costs to indemnify for financial prejudice due to duplicated work and early incurred expenses from the pre-trial examinations.

The court declined to award costs for the motion itself, finding that all parties had compromised their positions and no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed the timing for the delivery of the defendants' expert reports and the scheduling of motions to amend and strike pleadings.

The defendants sought to vacate expert report deadlines, arguing new claims required new experts.

The court largely denied this, granting only a brief extension for expert reports to June 9, 2023, with an exception for an ill expert.

The court also granted leave for the defendants' cross-motion to strike portions of the pleading, ordering it to be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 30, 2023, emphasizing the need to settle pleading propriety before summer.

This case management conference addressed the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim and the defendants' request to vary the timetable for expert reports.

The court scheduled the motion to amend the statement of claim.

Regarding the expert reports, the court was prepared to consider an extension but required more specific information from the defendants regarding which reports needed expansion, why, and the estimated time required, rather than vacating the date outright.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address the expert report timetable.

A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.

The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against the Canada Revenue Agency and others, the successful defendants sought costs of $766,325.50 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the hours docketed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive and duplicative, noting the involvement of multiple senior counsel.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the plaintiffs at $273,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs, including a software partnership and its investors, brought an action against the Canada Revenue Agency and its agents for negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from a tax audit and subsequent criminal investigation into a suspected tax shelter fraud.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the auditor did not cross the line into a criminal investigation improperly, and that the investigators met the standard of care.

The court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the CRA's belief that the enterprise was a fraudulent tax scheme, and no actionable wrongs were committed by the defendants.

During an abbreviated civil trial for negligent investigation against the Canada Revenue Agency, the defendants sought to introduce transcripts of testimony given by a now-deceased CRA auditor during a prior criminal preliminary inquiry.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis of hearsay.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that the necessity criterion was met due to the auditor's death, and the reliability criterion was satisfied because the auditor had been rigorously cross-examined on relevant issues during the preliminary inquiry.

The transcripts were ruled admissible.

The Attorney General appealed a decision discharging the bankrupt, arguing that the bankrupt's personal income tax debt exceeded the threshold under s. 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

At the time of the discharge hearing, the bankrupt had unpaid income tax assessments totalling approximately $4.478 million, of which $4.424 million was subject to outstanding appeals to the Tax Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal held that assessed amounts of personal income tax under appeal are contingent claims that the trustee can refuse to admit as proven claims.

Therefore, these amounts are not included in calculating the bankrupt's personal income tax debt under s. 172.1(1).

The appeal was dismissed.

A bankrupt sought discharge in circumstances where the Canada Revenue Agency opposed due to substantial personal income tax liabilities exceeding $1.2 million, primarily arising from disallowed tax shelter investments.

The court applied s. 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which mandates a discharge hearing where tax debt exceeds $200,000 and constitutes at least 75% of unsecured claims.

The court considered the debtor’s circumstances when the debt was incurred, his efforts to pay, and his future financial prospects, finding him to be an honest but unfortunate debtor who relied on professional advice and whose financial collapse resulted from business failures and reassessments.

Balancing rehabilitative objectives of bankruptcy law with deterrence for unpaid tax obligations, the court imposed a conditional discharge requiring payment equal to 4% of the principal tax debt.

A brief one‑month suspension of discharge was also ordered with ongoing reporting obligations until payment was completed.

A second‑time bankrupt applied for discharge under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act while facing more than $800,000 in tax debt owed to the Canada Revenue Agency, largely arising from the disallowance of a tax shelter.

The opposing creditor sought refusal of discharge or significant financial conditions.

The court considered the statutory factors under s. 172.1 of the Act, including the circumstances in which the tax debt was incurred, efforts made to repay it, competing financial obligations such as family support, and the bankrupt’s future prospects.

While acknowledging the seriousness of unpaid tax obligations, the court also considered systemic delays, enforcement actions affecting the bankrupt’s livelihood, and the rehabilitative objectives of bankruptcy law.

A conditional discharge was granted requiring payment of a small percentage of the principal tax debt and a short suspension period.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought an action against the Crown and Canada Revenue Agency employees, arguing that as a 'human being' rather than a 'person', the Income Tax Act did not apply to her.

She sought the return of ten years of taxes and damages, and asserted the defendants should be noted in default.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim.

The court found the defendants were not in default, as the plaintiff failed to comply with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act requirements for default judgments against the Crown.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff's pseudolegal arguments had been consistently rejected by Canadian courts and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.