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The defendant had not testified at trial, and the prosecution had withdrawn its case.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

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.

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.