Peter Hollinger

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 City of Thunder Bay sought an order for certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's order awarding $100 in costs to the defendant, Gurpreet Singh-Sidhu, under the Provincial Offences Act.

The defendant had not testified at trial, and the prosecution had withdrawn its case.

The court found that a defendant who does not testify is not a "witness" under s. 60(2) of the Act and is therefore not eligible for witness fees or expenses.

Consequently, the Justice of the Peace erred in awarding costs.

The application for certiorari was granted, and the costs order was quashed.

The applicant, City of Thunder Bay, sought an order for certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision to set aside four certificates of offence issued to the respondents for Highway Traffic Act violations.

The Justice of the Peace had quashed the certificates, deeming them "too vague" or "not specific" regarding the location of the alleged offences.

The Superior Court found that the certificates were complete and regular on their face, as the location was sufficiently identified by highway number and district, and the accused were served at the roadside, thus having knowledge of the location.

The court also noted that the prosecution could have sought amendments at trial and that there was no application to quash the charges.

The application for certiorari was granted, and the Justice of the Peace's orders were set aside.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation representing aboriginal communities, brought an action for trespass and damages against the defendants, who claimed to be the elected representatives of a member First Nation.

The plaintiff moved to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence and their entire counterclaim.

The court struck certain paragraphs of the statement of defence that pleaded irrelevancies, with leave to amend one paragraph.

The court also struck the counterclaim in its entirety, finding that claims for interference in an election or internal governance are not causes of action known to law, and that the allegations of defamation and injurious falsehood lacked the necessary elements and particulars.

The applicant, an Ontario Works employment counselor employed by the Pic Mobert First Nation, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent argued the matter fell under federal jurisdiction, sought dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code due to a prior WSIB decision, and requested the WSIB be added as a respondent.

The Tribunal held that the operation of the Ontario Works office was a provincial undertaking, placing the employment under provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1, finding the WSIB proceeding did not deal with the substance of the human rights allegations.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the WSIB as a respondent because no Code violations were alleged against it.

During a negligence trial concerning alleged diesel fuel contamination of lands belonging to a First Nation, the defendants brought a mid‑trial motion seeking to disqualify the plaintiff’s proposed expert geoscientist.

The defendants argued the expert report failed to comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it was not prepared for the litigation and did not clearly set out the issues, opinions, and bases for those opinions.

The court held that the report was only minimally compliant with Rule 53.03 and did not sufficiently identify the substance of the proposed expert testimony, thereby prejudicing the defendants’ ability to prepare for trial.

However, completely barring the witness from testifying would be too harsh.

The court granted leave for the witness to testify as a fact witness, subject to strict limits on use of the report and possible supplementation.

Costs decision following a motion seeking production of further and better affidavits of documents and cross‑examination on the supplementary affidavit of documents in environmental contamination litigation.

The defendants were successful in obtaining an order requiring the plaintiffs to serve a complete sworn supplementary affidavit of documents after the plaintiffs failed to comply with an earlier case management order.

However, the plaintiffs successfully resisted a request for cross‑examination on the affidavit of documents and defeated allegations of contempt seeking substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed costs based on overall success, proportionality, and reasonableness.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded but reduced to reflect the plaintiffs’ success on certain issues.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiffs to provide a sworn and certified further and better supplementary affidavit of documents and to produce the proposed deponent for cross‑examination.

The action concerned alleged environmental contamination from a fuel spill on reserve lands.

The court held that although certain environmental consulting documents were in the plaintiffs’ possession, they were subject to a restriction imposed by the consultant and therefore not within the plaintiffs’ control for production without permission.

The plaintiffs were ordered to serve a sworn supplementary affidavit of documents listing such restricted documents in Schedule B if permission for disclosure was not obtained.

The request to compel cross‑examination of the deponent was refused on proportionality grounds, given the remote location of the First Nation and the limited utility of such an examination.

The solicitors for the corporate plaintiff brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record.

The plaintiff corporation was owned by three individuals who were in disagreement and unable to provide collaborative instructions.

The solicitors also cited an unpaid retainer and a conflict of interest arising from their representation of one of the shareholders in a related matter.

Two of the shareholders opposed the motion, arguing prejudice to the corporation.

The court granted the motion, finding that the solicitors were in an impossible position due to the lack of instructions, conflict of interest, and unpaid fees, subject to the condition that they fulfill outstanding undertakings from discoveries.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer, the City of Thunder Bay, and his union, CUPE Local 87, alleging failure to accommodate a disability and discriminatory refusal to pursue a grievance.

The Tribunal held a conference call to address the timeliness of the application against the City, which was filed more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory event.

The Tribunal found that the application was out of time, the alleged reprisal was not a continuing event, and there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The application against the City was dismissed, and the applicant was directed to advise if he wished to pursue the timely application against the union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed preliminary matters in a Ministerial reference regarding the appointment of a conciliation officer and a related unfair labour practice application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board consolidated the matters on consent, directed the applicants to serve a proper Notice of Constitutional Question, and deferred a ruling on an intervenor's standing.

To expedite the proceedings, the Board directed the parties to provide legal argument and identify proposed evidence on whether a trade union may unilaterally abandon its bargaining rights and the implications of such abandonment.