Nicholas Macos

The appellant appealed two orders finding a joint venture agreement for a convenience store on First Nation land enforceable and granting the respondent permanent possession of the business.

The appellant argued the agreement was void under s. 28 of the Indian Act, violated the First Nation's Land Code, and contained a forged redaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement did not directly grant land possession, the possession order was subject to First Nation approval, and the application judge reasonably relied on expert handwriting evidence to find the document authentic.

The applicant, 2089322 Ontario Corporation, sought a determination of its rights under a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Luc DesRoches and Rezmart Gas and Tobacco.

The primary issues were the authenticity of a redacted version of the JVA (JVA2), which the respondent alleged was forged, and the enforceability of the JVA in light of section 28 of the Indian Act.

The court found JVA2 to be the authentic agreement, accepting the applicant's expert handwriting analysis and rejecting the respondent's forgery allegations.

Furthermore, the court declared that the JVA was not voided by section 28 of the Indian Act, as it merely contemplated a lease of reserve land rather than explicitly conferring a possessory interest to a non-band member.

The applicant and respondents were involved in a long-standing dispute over a Joint Venture Agreement for a gas bar on a First Nation.

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to bifurcate the hearing to address the Indian Act issue first, for interim possession of the business, and for the return of $15,000 paid into court as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion to call oral evidence at the hearing.

The court denied the bifurcation and interim possession motions, granted the motion to call oral evidence, and ordered the return of the $15,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed from an order of the Superior Court dismissing his preliminary motion to challenge the authenticity of a joint venture agreement through forensic document examination.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge had mischaracterized the nature of the preliminary motion and made material factual errors in his analysis.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside portions of the October order, and reinstated the April order pending the appellant's opportunity to bring a motion in Superior Court regarding the document's authenticity.

The court also preserved the respondent's right to pursue relief if the appellant failed to bring such motion within 30 days.

The respondent retained its costs award from the application judge, and no costs were awarded on the appeal.

The municipality brought a motion seeking dismissal of a counterclaim for delay arising from alleged flooding and property damage related to road drainage work.

The counterclaiming party had failed to comply with a status hearing timetable requiring agreement on a discovery plan and delivery of an affidavit of documents.

Applying Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held it had jurisdiction to dismiss the counterclaim on motion for non‑compliance with a timetable arising from a status hearing.

The counterclaiming party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the prolonged delay and did not establish that the moving party would suffer no non‑compensable prejudice.

The court dismissed the counterclaim for delay.