Robert J. M. Janes

This endorsement from a case conference addressed several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Indigenous land claims.

The court provided directions regarding preparatory materials for upcoming out-of-court expert examinations, including the appointment of a hybrid commissioner and deadlines for expert report summaries and legal arguments.

The court also addressed a dispute regarding the scope of cross-examination of an expert witness, directing the parties to narrow issues concerning adversity of interest before seeking further judicial determination.

Finally, the court confirmed the appointment of a pre-trial judge and scheduled the next case conference.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses procedural issues in a complex litigation, specifically disputes regarding the admissibility of expert reports and estimates of trial length.

The court noted progress in resolving these issues and scheduled a further case conference to revisit them and receive an update on an expert witness's health.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation, including the taking of expert evidence before trial, Canada's missed deadline for an expert report, the appointment of pre-trial and trial judges, the use of trial presentation software, and Ontario's Crown immunity defence.

The court scheduled a motion for expert evidence and provided directions for parties to prepare a trial timetable and discuss judicial assistance.

This case management conference endorsement addresses the timetable for a complex action, primarily focusing on the delivery of expert reports and amended pleadings.

The court resolved disagreements between the plaintiff, defendants, and intervener regarding deadlines for expert reports, particularly those from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) and experts who had been ill.

The court also set a deadline for Ontario's defence to Canada's cross-claim, prioritizing realistic timelines and efficiency over the plaintiff's desire for earlier closures.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed the timing for the delivery of the defendants' expert reports and the scheduling of motions to amend and strike pleadings.

The defendants sought to vacate expert report deadlines, arguing new claims required new experts.

The court largely denied this, granting only a brief extension for expert reports to June 9, 2023, with an exception for an ill expert.

The court also granted leave for the defendants' cross-motion to strike portions of the pleading, ordering it to be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 30, 2023, emphasizing the need to settle pleading propriety before summer.

This case management conference addressed the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim and the defendants' request to vary the timetable for expert reports.

The court scheduled the motion to amend the statement of claim.

Regarding the expert reports, the court was prepared to consider an extension but required more specific information from the defendants regarding which reports needed expansion, why, and the estimated time required, rather than vacating the date outright.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address the expert report timetable.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the Attorney General of Canada and several First Nations against the Estate of William Albin Herold.

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed the appeals and set aside the lower court orders.

In this endorsement, the court fixed the costs of the proceedings below at $154,530.76, awarded to the appellant First Nations, as the Attorney General of Canada did not seek costs below.

The court also varied its previous appeal costs award, granting the full $43,000 (inclusive of disbursements and taxes) to the appellant First Nations, with no costs awarded to the Attorney General of Canada on appeal, in accordance with a prior agreement between the parties.

The Estate of William Albin Herold claimed ownership of three islands in Lake Katchewanooka, arguing they were conveyed as part of Lot 35 by Letters Patent in 1868, despite having separated from the mainland due to rising water levels.

The application judge found in favour of the Estate, applying a "Flooding Principle" to fix the boundary and concluding that treaties with First Nations did not affect the Crown's right to sell.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by the First Nations and the Attorney General of Canada, finding that the application judge made extricable errors of law by failing to objectively ascertain the parties' intentions in the Letters Patent, misapplying the Flooding Principle, and not properly considering the Crown's treaty obligations.

The appellate court concluded that the Letters Patent did not convey the islands, as they were physically separate, separately identified, and subject to specific Crown obligations under Treaty 78.

The appellants, individual members of the Fort Nelson First Nation, blocked a logging company's access to timber sites after the Crown granted logging licences.

Sued in tort, they defended on the basis that the licences were issued in breach of the duty to consult and violated their treaty rights under Treaty No. 8.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the duty to consult is owed to the Aboriginal group collectively, and absent authorization from the First Nation, individual members cannot assert a breach of that duty on their own.

The Court declined to make a definitive pronouncement on whether individual members could assert treaty rights in these circumstances, but ultimately dismissed the appeal on the basis that raising the defences constituted an abuse of process, as the appellants had failed to challenge the licences when issued and instead resorted to self-help by blockading access.

Following the dismissal of an action and related motions concerning Treaty 3 beneficiaries and Aboriginal rights litigation, the successful government defendant sought costs of approximately $31,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that the matter constituted public interest litigation raising novel issues regarding civil procedure for Aboriginal rights claims, and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that the litigation raised significant public interest considerations and novel legal questions concerning the procedural framework for litigating Aboriginal rights.

Exercising its discretion on costs, the court declined to apply the traditional rule that costs follow the event in order to avoid discouraging public interest litigation.

No order as to costs was made.