9 total
Court rules on scope of cross-examination for historical expert during pre-trial examinations.
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.
The court issued procedural directions for upcoming out-of-court expert examinations and the appointment of a pre-trial judge.
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.
The court issued procedural directions regarding a pre-trial evidence motion, expert report deadlines, and trial scheduling.
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).
The court issued procedural directions regarding expert evidence scheduling, trial timetables, and trial presentation software.
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 court set a litigation timetable prioritizing realistic deadlines and accommodating expert illness.
This case management conference endorsement addresses the timetable for a complex action, primarily focusing on the delivery of expert reports and amended pleadings.
The court resolved disagreements between the plaintiff, defendants, and intervener regarding deadlines for expert reports, particularly those from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) and experts who had been ill.
The court also set a deadline for Ontario's defence to Canada's cross-claim, prioritizing realistic timelines and efficiency over the plaintiff's desire for earlier closures.
The court issued procedural directions for upcoming intervention motions in a complex Indigenous litigation.
This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, the Attorney General of Canada, and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.
Key issues include determining the venue for upcoming intervention motions, managing requests for participation from individuals in response to public notices, addressing the filing of a redacted motion record to protect privacy, setting procedures for evidentiary objections, approving a minor change to the online notice regarding hearing dates, and providing detailed CaseLines directions for electronic document management.
The court provided specific instructions for each of these procedural aspects to ensure the efficient and transparent progression of the litigation.
The court issued procedural directions adjusting the timetable, finalizing notice, and addressing venue for intervention motions.
This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in ongoing litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.
The endorsement finalizes the content of a notice for intervention motions, adjusts the timetable for cross-examinations and factum deliveries, resolves confidentiality concerns regarding expert reports appended to motion materials, and confirms the venue for intervention motion hearings.
Court resolves procedural issues regarding community notice and intervener pleadings in Indigenous land claim.
A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.
The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.
The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.
Court set intervention process and timetable in historic Indigenous land claim.
In a long-running Indigenous land claim concerning alleged Crown breaches of fiduciary and treaty obligations arising from the Haldimand Proclamation and Simcoe Patent, the court issued a case conference endorsement setting the process for forthcoming intervention motions.
The court declined to make case conferences public, but directed broader notice to affected Haudenosaunee communities and supported creation of a website containing publicly filed materials.
The court rejected, at this stage, informal in situ proceedings to gather process submissions or appointment of an amicus curiae, while indicating the intervention motions should be heard in person on the lands at issue if feasible, failing which in Brantford.
A timetable was fixed to move the intervention motions forward efficiently while allowing additional interested groups time to participate.
