Michael Roach

The appellant First Nation's reserve land was flooded in the 1920s–1930s to power hydroelectricity generation without its consent, without compensation, and without lawful authorization.

The trial judge found Canada breached its fiduciary duty and awarded $30,000,000 in equitable compensation, valuing the flooded land based on general expropriation principles and excluding the land's value to the hydroelectricity project.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred by treating compliance with minimum expropriation obligations as sufficient to discharge the fiduciary duty, which required Canada to negotiate compensation reflecting the full value of the land to the project.

The appeal was allowed and the equitable compensation award returned to the Federal Court for reassessment to include the value of the flooded land for hydroelectricity generation.

Côté J. dissented, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's compensation assessment and no evidentiary basis for the majority's approach.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' statement of claim, or in the alternative, for leave to file a statement of defence, arguing that the action was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) and section 111(2) of the Pension Act.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP Staff Sergeant, sought damages for intentional torts, breach of contract, and Charter violations arising from alleged harassment and assault during her service, for which she had already received a disability pension for PTSD.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims were entirely barred, particularly for damages not covered by the pension, claims for events after the initial injury, and Charter claims.

The court also found that section 111(2) of the Pension Act did not require a further stay as the plaintiff was not seeking to review or re-assess her pension.

The Attorney General of Canada was completely successful on a motion to stay the plaintiffs' claim and sought costs.

The court found the Attorney General's claimed costs excessive as the matter was not complex and the case law was overwhelmingly in its favour.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in any event of the cause rather than forthwith, due to the pending decision on whether the action is barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The individual defendants who supported the motion were denied costs as they contributed little to the debate.

The defendants moved to stay a civil action brought by an RCMP member alleging assault, sexual assault, harassment, and related torts arising during her service on the RCMP Musical Ride.

The moving party argued that under s. 111 of the Pension Act and s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the action must be stayed until the plaintiff applied for and exhausted the statutory pension process for disability benefits arising from the same injuries.

The plaintiff argued the statutory scheme should not apply to intentional misconduct such as assaults and sexual assaults.

The court held that the statutory language broadly captures injuries or diseases arising out of service and reflects Parliament’s intent to prevent double recovery.

Accordingly, the action was stayed pending a final determination of the plaintiff’s entitlement to a pension by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.