Roger J. Horst

The plaintiff band sought to enforce a judgment debt against the defendant band member by seizing his certificates of possession for lands situated on the reserve.

The defendant argued that section 29 of the Indian Act prohibits the seizure of reserve lands under legal process.

The court held that while section 29 protects the underlying Crown title to reserve lands from seizure by non-Indians, section 89(1) expressly permits an Indian or a band to seize the real or personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve.

The court ordered the defendant to transfer his certificates of possession to the band to satisfy the debt.

The Crown defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action on the basis that the plaintiff failed to provide notice within ten days as required by s. 7(3) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The plaintiff was injured when a swing set on Crown-owned property collapsed.

Although written notice was sent outside the statutory ten‑day period, correspondence indicated that the Crown’s property manager attempted to inspect the swing the day after the incident.

The court drew an adverse inference from the Crown’s failure to provide affidavit evidence explaining what information it received or what investigation it undertook.

The court held that the Crown effectively received notice and had an opportunity to investigate shortly after the incident, satisfying the legislative purpose of the notice provision.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against financial advisors and their dealer, alleging they systemically recommended a 'Leveraging Scheme' to borrow money to invest in mutual funds without regard to suitability.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the class was identifiable, and common issues existed regarding the duty of care, breach of duty, and punitive damages.

The court declined to certify damages as a common issue, finding it required individual assessment.

The court also held that a class proceeding was preferable to the Ombudsman for Banking and Investment Services (OBSI) process, which lacked binding remedial powers and adequate investor participation.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence of an MFDA settlement was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him to be a trespasser on lands beneficially owned by the Band and ordering him to vacate the lands, pay damages, and comply with other consequential relief.

The appellant claimed an equitable interest in the lands based on a purported 1993 agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant's evidence was untrue and that the Band was not estopped from asserting its legal rights.

The Court dismissed the substance of the appeal, including the award of punitive damages, but varied the judgment to narrow the scope of orders regarding the removal of chattels and environmental remediation.

The appellant was severely injured while exercising a horse at a racetrack.

His worker's compensation claim was denied because the trainer who hired him failed to maintain coverage as required by the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The appellant sued the trainer, the Ontario Racing Commission, and the racetrack owner for negligence.

The trial judge found only the trainer liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that neither the Commission nor the racetrack owner owed a private law duty of care to the appellant to ensure compliance with the rules, as their statutory mandates were to serve the public interest rather than private individuals.

The defendant Ministry of the Environment brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its Rule 21 motion.

The underlying action involved a corporate plaintiff alleging that the Ministry's investigation, press releases, and threats of core drilling violated its rights under sections 7, 8, and 11 of the Charter, despite no charges being laid.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding whether a corporation could assert these Charter rights in the absence of penal proceedings, and that the issues raised were of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision declaring that it unreasonably withheld consent for the respondent tenant, Loblaws, to change its supermarket banner to 'No Frills' and temporarily close for renovations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the lease's use and continuous operation provisions.

The court applied a deferential standard of review to the factual findings and upheld the refusal to admit new evidence.

The appellant insurer sought to add Livent Inc. and several of its directors as defendants by counterclaim in an action brought by outside directors to enforce a Directors and Officers Liability policy.

The insurer also sought to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings against Livent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adding Livent as a party because the insurer was entitled to seek a declaration regarding the policy's validity against the policyholder.

However, the court refused to add the additional directors, finding it would unnecessarily complicate the discrete legal issue of coverage for the innocent outside directors.

The CCAA stay was lifted to the extent necessary to give effect to the order.