Nicholas C. Tibollo

The applicant First Nations sought judicial review to quash a Notice of Completion of an Environmental Study Report regarding the transfer of the Seaton lands by the Ontario Realty Corporation.

The applicants argued the Crown breached its constitutional and statutory duties to consult them about potential aboriginal burial sites on the lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no constitutional duty to consult because the applicants had surrendered their rights to the lands under the 1923 Williams Treaties.

The court also held that the statutory consultation process under the Environmental Assessment Act was procedurally fair, noting the broad nature of the assessment and the effective involvement of the Founding First Nations Circle.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for the tort of deceit and ordering them to pay damages equivalent to US $7,832,083.00.

The trial judge found that the appellants falsely represented that computer equipment purchased from the respondents was destined for educational ministries in China and Australia in order to obtain special discounted pricing, when in fact the equipment was diverted to the grey market.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants made false representations, that the respondents relied on them, and that the deceit caused the respondents' loss.

The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $6,000 to the respondent, a former client.

The dispute centered on whether $6,000 from the respondent's settlement funds was properly retained by the appellant to pay her husband's outstanding legal accounts, or whether a subsequent $25,000 payment by the husband was an all-inclusive settlement of his debts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's reliance on the credible testimony of the husband's new counsel regarding the all-inclusive nature of the $25,000 settlement.

The appellant appealed two orders of a Master dismissing its action and ordering payment out of court.

The action, which was over seven years old, had been transferred to Case Management after years of dormancy.

The Master found the appellant had repeatedly breached orders regarding security for costs, delivery of a release, and provision of damages calculations and documentation.

The Divisional Court held that the Master did not err in principle or in the exercise of his discretion under Rules 60.12 and 77.10(7) to dismiss the action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants sought to claim a federal sales tax refund belonging to a bankrupt company, relying on assignments made prior to and during the bankruptcy.

The trustee in bankruptcy held the refund and argued the assignments were invalid.

The Court of Appeal held that the tax refund was a 'Crown debt' under the Financial Administration Act, which prohibits the assignment of such debts.

The court also found that the general power of a trustee to sell assets under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not override this specific prohibition.

The appeal was dismissed.