4 total
Draft order approved confirming interveners are neither entitled to nor liable for costs of the appeals.
The court was asked for assistance in settling the terms of an order granting intervener status, specifically regarding costs.
The respondents submitted a draft order, agreed to by most parties, stating that interveners would not be entitled to seek costs or be liable for costs of the appeals.
As no other parties proposed different terms, the court approved the draft order in accordance with its usual practice.
Motions to intervene as parties and friends of the court granted in Treaty 3 appeal.
Several First Nations and a mining company brought motions to intervene in an appeal concerning Aboriginal harvesting rights under Treaty 3 and Ontario's jurisdiction to grant logging permits.
The court granted friend of the court status to Grand Council of Treaty 3, Lac Seul First Nation, Big Grassy First Nation, and Treaty 6 First Nations, finding their perspectives would assist the court.
The court granted party status to Goldcorp Inc. and Wabauskang First Nation, finding they had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by the broad declaration under appeal.
The interveners were ordered to accept the record as it is and not expand the issues.
Timetable set for motions for leave to intervene in the appeals.
A case management conference was held to determine the procedure for hearing motions for leave to intervene in the appeals.
The court ordered that all interested persons must bring a motion in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and set a timetable for the service and filing of motion records and factums, with the motions to be heard on June 28, 2012.
Appeal dismissed; appellant's acquisition of mineral rights constitutes 'mining rights' subject to tax under the Mining Act.
The appellant appealed a decision finding it liable for tax under s. 189(1)(e) of the Mining Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the appellant's acquisition of mineral rights fell within the statutory definition of 'mining rights'.
The court held that the industry distinction between surface rights and surface access rights does not apply for the purpose of tax liability under the Act.