Patricia C. Hennessy

In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.

The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.

Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.

The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.

The plaintiff, John Shane, sought damages from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation (OAHS) for property damage caused by a fire in a rental unit leased to OAHS clients.

Shane claimed OAHS had orally agreed to cover all property damage caused by its clients, or, in the alternative, that OAHS was negligent in supporting the tenants.

The court found no oral contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds or clear promise by OAHS to cover all damages.

The court also found no evidence of negligence by OAHS.

The claim was dismissed.

Ontario brought a motion to adjourn the Stage Three trial of a complex treaty rights claim sine die, pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the appeal of Stage One and Stage Two.

The plaintiffs, interveners, and Canada opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for an adjournment, balancing the interests of the parties and the administration of justice.

The court found that the risk of proceeding was manageable, while the prejudice to the plaintiffs and the administration of justice caused by further delay would be significant.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal remitted the issue of the Huron plaintiffs' Stage One trial costs to the Superior Court for reconsideration, questioning the substantial difference in hours claimed compared to the Superior plaintiffs.

The court found the Huron plaintiffs' costs to be fair and reasonable, noting the added complexity of representing 21 First Nations, the extensive evidence led on the Anishinaabe perspective, the incorporation of Anishinaabe Ceremony and protocol, and the necessary creation of the Robinson Huron Trust to manage the litigation.

The court concluded that the costs were proportionate and within the reasonable expectations of the parties given the historical significance and complexity of the treaty claims.

Batchewana First Nation sought to be joined as a necessary party plaintiff or, alternatively, for leave to intervene as an added party plaintiff in the Robinson Superior Treaty action, which concerns claims for augmented annuities.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Batchewana, a beneficiary of the Robinson Huron Treaty, was not a necessary party to the Superior action, as its claim for augmented annuities based on "just claims" to lands within the Superior Territory was inconsistent with its prior position in the Huron action and did not directly relate to the Superior Treaty's interpretation or compensation.

The court also found that Batchewana did not meet the criteria for intervention and that its proposed intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the complex, multi-stage litigation.

Namaygoosisagagun Ojibway Nation sought leave to intervene in the Robinson Superior Treaty action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs and Gull Bay First Nation opposed the intervention, arguing that Namaygoosisagagun was not a recognized band and lacked a collective interest.

The Crown defendants consented with provisos to prevent litigation of Namaygoosisagagun's band status or s. 35 rights within this proceeding.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding that Namaygoosisagagun had a contingent collective interest that met the low threshold for intervention, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting them from seeking to prove or determine issues related to their band status, s. 35 rights, or beneficiary status under the Treaty, and from making submissions conflicting with the plaintiffs' position on distribution.

Teme-Augama Anishnabai and Temagami First Nation (TAA) sought leave to intervene as added party plaintiffs in the Restoule action, a case concerning the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

While the original plaintiffs and Canada consented to the intervention, Ontario opposed a specific condition that would allow TAA to seek leave to file reply reports to Ontario's reports, even if TAA had not previously filed principal reports.

TAA argued this condition was necessary due to unique interests stemming from a prior Supreme Court decision and ongoing negotiations regarding their s. 35 rights.

The court granted the intervention with the disputed condition, finding Ontario's perceived risk of case splitting speculative and emphasizing the potential prejudice to TAA if denied the ability to respond to evidence on critical treaty boundary issues.

The offender was convicted of one count of sexual assault following an incident where he engaged in unprotected intercourse with an impaired complainant on a first date.

The Crown sought a sentence of 30-36 months, while the defence proposed 18 months.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the complainant and the profound impact on her, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a related criminal record and strong pro-social support.

The court sentenced the offender to two years less a day in custody, followed by one year of probation, and imposed ancillary orders including a 10-year weapons prohibition and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in a $20 million road construction dispute.

The central issue in the action is responsibility for excess rock excavation.

The court dismissed most of the defendants' requests, finding that questions about a 1994 litigation between the parties were irrelevant and that the plaintiffs' answers regarding their blasting subcontractor were sufficient and proportionate.

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide a written answer regarding how they would have bid the job differently only if their expert report provided sufficient data to do so.

Following convictions for sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old and uttering a threat, the court imposed a six-year penitentiary sentence on the exploitation count and a concurrent one-year sentence on the threat count.

The court treated the accused’s abuse of a position of trust, the complainant’s extreme vulnerability, the isolation of the island location, the threat during the sexual act, and the accused’s prior record and probation status as significant aggravating factors.

Applying the modern sentencing approach for sexual offences against children and young persons emphasized in Friesen, the court held that denunciation and deterrence required a significant penitentiary sentence.

The sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle because it arose from the same facts as the sexual exploitation count.

At the complainant’s request, the publication ban was removed and ancillary orders were made.

Following Stage Two of a complex treaty rights trial, the plaintiffs sought costs against Ontario.

Ontario disputed the quantum and the partial indemnity rate, arguing the plaintiffs expended an unreasonable amount of time compared to the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs' time expenditure was reasonable given the complexity of the issues, including Crown immunity and limitations, and the risks involved.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis at a rate of 65%, taking into account an offer to settle made by the Superior plaintiffs and the unique nature of the Anishinaabek-Crown treaty relationship.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following a first date arranged through an online dating site.

The complainant testified that she became ill after consuming wine, fell asleep, and awoke to the accused having unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her consent.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated the sexual activity and raised the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent after an initial rejection earlier in the evening.

The accused was found guilty.

The two offenders were convicted of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old unconscious victim.

The assault involved digital penetration by one offender while the other encouraged and facilitated the act.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of penile penetration lessened the gravity of the offence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced both first-time offenders to 16 months in custody followed by two years of probation, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a weapons prohibition.

The applicant sought a stay of sexual assault charges based on unreasonable pre-charge delay (4 years, 4 months), arguing police conduct constituted an abuse of process by allowing the complainant to dictate the timing of charges.

The Crown contended that police discretion, which considered the complainant's emotional readiness and willingness to participate, was reasonable and aligned with contemporary societal attitudes and victims' rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding no actual prejudice to the applicant's fair trial rights and concluding that the police conduct, while influenced by the complainant's circumstances, did not amount to egregious state conduct that seriously compromised the integrity of the judicial system.

The plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties, brought a motion for partial summary judgment in Stage Two of their action against the federal and provincial Crowns.

They sought declarations that their claims for breach of the treaties' annuity augmentation promises were not barred by Ontario's limitations legislation or the doctrine of Crown immunity.

The Superior Court of Justice granted partial summary judgment on these issues, finding that treaties are not contracts or specialties subject to the Limitations Act, 1990, and that equitable claims for breach of fiduciary duty could historically be pursued by petition of right, thus falling outside Crown immunity under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The court declined to grant summary judgment on the issues of joint and several liability and whether Canada should act as paymaster, deferring those matters to the Stage Three trial.

The two accused were jointly charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, who had consumed an unknown substance and alcohol, lost consciousness but later experienced a flashback of being sexually assaulted by one accused while the other accused watched and provided encouragement.

The court found the complainant's flashback memory to be reliable, as it was consistent and corroborated by physical bruising.

The court held that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

Both accused were found guilty, with the observing accused convicted as a party to the offence for aiding and abetting by facilitating the assault and encouraging the principal offender.

Ontario brought a motion to reopen Stage One of the trial to admit newly discovered evidence, specifically the Fort William Jesuit Mission Diary and a September 30, 1850 entry, along with expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence would not probably have changed the result of the trial and could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The court also ruled that the expert opinion evidence was inadmissible on the motion as it was not necessary and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The Anishinaabe beneficiaries of the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior Treaties of 1850 brought actions seeking declarations regarding the interpretation of the annuity augmentation clause in the Treaties.

The Treaties provided for a perpetual annuity that the Crown promised to increase if the ceded territory produced an amount enabling the Crown to do so without incurring loss, provided the amount paid to each individual did not exceed £1 ($4) per year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order.

The Court held that the Crown has a mandatory obligation to increase the collective annuities when economic circumstances warrant, and that the $4 cap applies only to individual distributions, not the collective entitlement.

The Court also found that the Crown owes an ad hoc fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries to engage in the process of determining whether the economic circumstances warrant an increase.

Sentencing decision arising from prolonged sexual abuse, luring, procuring, sexual exploitation, exposure, and invitation offences committed against numerous vulnerable adolescent boys over a seven-year period.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, parity, and totality, finding extreme aggravating features in the number of victims, their ages, the systematic grooming, the provision of drugs and alcohol, the use of fake online identities, the abuse of trust, and the recruitment of victims to bring in younger boys.

A 17-year global penitentiary sentence was imposed, with 25.5 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Applying the s. 743.6(1) analysis, the court further delayed parole eligibility until one half of the sentence had been served.

The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for $6,097.25 for unpaid invoices.

Neither party led any evidence or made any submissions regarding the counterclaim during the trial.

As a result, the court issued supplementary reasons dismissing the counterclaim.