3 total
Compensation decision upheld under honour-of-the-Crown review despite process deficiencies.
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.
Consent motion granted approving a $10 billion settlement for past annuities under the Robinson Huron Treaty.
The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent for a partial judgment to give effect to a settlement agreement regarding past annuities payable under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.
The settlement resolves claims that the Crown failed to fulfill its promise to augment the annuity over time.
Under the agreement, the federal and provincial Crowns will pay $10 billion to the plaintiffs.
The court approved the settlement agreement and granted the partial judgment.
Motion to adjourn Stage Three of complex treaty trial pending SCC appeal 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.