COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14, C3512-14A and 2001-0673
DATE: 2022-05-31
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Mike Restoule, Patsy Corbiere, Duke Peltier, Peter Recollet, Dean Sayers and Roger Daybutch, on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Ojibewa (Anishinaabe) Nation who are beneficiaries of The Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850
Plaintiffs
– and –
The Attorney General of Canada,
The Attorney General of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Defendants
The Red Rock First Nation and The Whitesand First Nation
Third Parties
David C. Nahwegahbow/ Dianne G. Corbiere/ Christopher E. Albinati/ Daniel McCoy, for the Plaintiffs
No submissions
D. Brent McPherson, Imran Kamal,
Mariam Gagi, for the Defendant the Attorney General of Ontario
No submissions
HEARD: Written Submissions
HENNESSY J.
RECONSIDERATION ON STAGE ONE COSTS
Overview
[1] The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the appeal of Stage One costs in paras. 334-359 of their decision[^1] and remitted the matter of the Huron plaintiffs’ fees for the Stage One trial to this court: “The fees allowed are set aside and remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration in light of these reasons.”[^2]
[2] In their reasons, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted at para. 355 that the “trial judge did not address the substantial difference between the hours claimed as between the Huron and Superior plaintiffs. The material before her did not permit her to come to a conclusion as to the amount of time reasonably required to by the Huron plaintiffs to deal with all aspects of the action.”
[3] The Court of Appeal directed me to consider whether there was a logical explanation for the substantially greater amount of legal time claimed and then to step back and consider the result produced and question whether, in all of the circumstances, the result is fair and reasonable.[^3]
Ontario’s Position
[4] Ontario submits on this review that the absence of sufficiently detailed hour-based dockets to justify the fees does not allow this court to assess the reasonableness of or the difference in costs between the two plaintiff groups and between the Huron plaintiffs and Ontario. Ontario states that the plaintiffs’ submissions lead to the inference that the hours claimed reflect unreasonable duplication of work, over-lawyering and other inefficiencies that warrant a significant deduction from the fees claimed. In addition, Ontario asserts that the fees claimed for matters related to setting up the Robinson Huron Trust (the “RHT”) and internal client organizational matters are not properly included in a claim for costs and should be deducted.
[5] Ontario asks this court to award the Huron plaintiffs’ fees in the same amount as the Superior plaintiffs’ fees plus a 20% premium to account for the 21 First Nations they represented compared to the 2 First Nations represented by Superior counsel.
The Huron Plaintiffs’ Position
[6] The Huron plaintiffs focused their submissions on providing an explanation for the significant difference between the amount of time claimed by their counsel team as compared to the amount of time claimed by counsel for the Superior plaintiffs and responding to the claim that their time was far in excess of the amount of time claimed by Ontario for document preparation. The explanation was set out in the affidavit of Roger Jones, which described the work done in each of the pre-trial stages and the trial process. The material also includes a detailed explanation of the rationale and necessity of the RHT, the work entailed in setting up the RHT and managing the group of 21 plaintiff First Nations.
Discussion
[7] The dispute between the parties is on the issue of quantum and the entitlement to costs associated with the RHT. Underlying that dispute is a fundamental disagreement on the approach required on this review. Ontario asserts that the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient quantitative data. The plaintiffs state that they have provided the explanation and answered the questions posed by the Ontario Court of Appeal through the 75-paragraph affidavit of Roger Jones, and the Supplement to the Costs Outline.
[8] The affidavit of Roger Jones and the plaintiffs’ submissions provide an explanation for the difference between their time claimed and the time claimed by the Superior plaintiffs under four broad themes:
• Increased time requirements caused by representing 21 distinct and diverse First Nations;
• Time requirements associated with calling evidence on the Anishinaabe perspective, including arranging for the testimony of Chiefs and Elder witnesses and three additional expert witnesses;
• Time requirements associated with organizing Ceremony and protocols surrounding the trial;
• Time requirements associated with designing, creating, maintaining and supporting the RHT; and
• In addition, the plaintiffs noted that they took the lead on a motion respecting livestreaming and the qualification of a defense expert witness who was ultimately withdrawn.
[9] Mr. Jones underscores two components of the plaintiffs’ claim for hours which distinguish them from the claim by the Superior group. The first is the complexity of representing 21 First Nations as compared to representing 2 First Nations. The second is the plaintiffs’ intention to create an evidentiary record that included the Anishinaabe perspective. The Huron plaintiffs introduced additional witnesses, incorporated Anishinaabe Ceremony and protocol throughout the process, and organized the week-long stays in two communities outside of the court. Each of these initiatives greatly added to the magnitude and complexity of the task of counsel and were reasonably necessary for the advancement of their claim in the context of the Anishinaabe perspective.
[10] The Huron plaintiffs created a legal vehicle, the RHT, as a means of managing some aspects of the relationships amongst the group of 21 First Nations. The basis for the decision to create and maintain the RHT was addressed in the parties’ submissions, and I will deal with it separately on the question of whether the associated time and fees are properly recoverable.
A Comparison of the Hours claimed by the two Plaintiffs
[11] I give consideration to the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal, denied leave to appeal the cost award to the Superior plaintiffs as well as the fact that the defendant Canada accepted the reasonableness of the Superior plaintiffs’ costs.[^4] While the two sets of plaintiffs advanced their cases together, they made separate and different approaches to the evidentiary record. The explanation for the difference between the Huron and Superior costs can therefore begin with a comparison of a number of features of the two litigation approaches. The time expended is reflected in their different approaches. A comparison of the different approaches provides one perspective on the reasonableness of the Huron claim. While many of these features were evident throughout the case management process and trial itself, I did not specifically identify them in my initial cost decision. Now having regard to the submissions, I will outline some of the main differences between the two claims for hours worked.
[12] A simple comparison shows the following:
Plaintiff witnesses
[13] Superior plaintiffs: 2 expert witnesses over 7 days. Huron plaintiffs: 12 witnesses over 22 days, including 5 experts over 16 days, 3 Chiefs and 4 Elders. The plaintiffs also prepared an additional expert to respond to Canada before Canada withdrew their witness.
Elder witnesses
[14] Only the Huron plaintiffs brought Elders as witnesses. The unique features of the testimony from four Elders involved extensive consultation with leaders and members of different communities to identify which Elders should testify. The Huron plaintiffs also claimed time for the work of developing and reaching consensus on the Protocol for the taking of Elder Evidence. The time claimed for the work associated with Elder evidence resulted in, among other things, the significant and important translation of the Treaty into Anishinaabemowin.
Anishinaabe Perspective Evidence
[15] Only the Huron plaintiffs lead evidence on the Anishinaabe perspective. They called 3 Chiefs and 3 Indigenous scholars on topics such as treaty principles, Anishinaabe governance, doodemag, leadership, language, and the Covenant Chain relationship. This evidence was also helpful to the Superior plaintiffs’ case and was relied upon by the court.
Cross-examinations of defendants’ experts
[16] Superior plaintiffs: 4 days for 2 witnesses. Huron plaintiffs: 9 days for same 2 witnesses. Looking at all of the above features, I note that the differences in approach were significant but neither approach was frivolous or unreasonable. Both the Huron and Superior approaches to advancing their claims accomplished their goals in a way that was efficient and effective. The hours claimed represent reasonably necessary work to effectively advance the Huron plaintiffs’ claim and are reasonably claimed.
The Added Complexity of 21 First Nations as the Huron Plaintiffs
[17] The sheer magnitude and complexity of the Huron plaintiff group required a different level of management than the Superior plaintiff group of 2 First Nations. Ontario recognizes this fact. Although the creation of the RHT was meant to address some of these complexities, it was not the only response to the challenges. In his affidavit, Mr. Jones addresses the size and diversity of the plaintiff group and the challenge it added to the ongoing tasks of counsel to maintain a cohesive, stable, and unified group as the matter progressed. Amongst other complexities, the First Nations are themselves signatories to three different treaties. I understand that the work included frequent and regular visits to each First Nation, reporting to the Chiefs, Bands and Elders in the First Nations for the purpose of seeking authorization and financing through Band Council Resolutions, for reviewing evidence, for seeking instructions and for reporting. I appreciate the travel distance and logistical issues associated with travel in north-eastern Ontario, that one person would not undertake a road trip tour of these First Nations alone in any season and that the visits required both general and specific preparation. The Huron First Nations included the Elders and knowledge keepers in the development of their trial approach and preparation for trial which had a significant impact on the time claimed from the outset of the litigation. I accept that it took considerably more time to gain and maintain the confidence of members of 21 different communities who had to authorize and fund this litigation than it would take with to manage 2 client First Nations.
Evidence on the Anishinaabe Perspective
[18] In his affidavit, Roger Jones explained the process to identify, collect and create an evidentiary record that introduced the Anishinaabe perspective to the court. This evidence was unique and was in addition to the historical and ethno-historical evidence lead by both plaintiff groups. The Huron plaintiffs brought the Anishinaabe perspective including their Aansokaanan, sacred stories, and world view to the court through 10 witnesses: 3 Chiefs, 4 Elders from 4 communities, and Anishinaabe scholars who testified on the intersections of culture, law, language, governance, and ceremony. It was a significant body of evidence, never before collected. The Anishinaabe perspective evidence brought rich historical context and perspective to the interpretative task before the court and in addition demonstrated the plaintiffs’ attempt to bring the treaty relationship between the parties into the present-day litigation.
[19] The evidence from this diverse group of witnesses was intended to ensure that the court understood the context and the experience of the plaintiffs’, both historically and at present. It was in addition to and no less important than the historical evidence supported by the documentary record.
[20] Ontario’s 20% proposed premium to account for the difference in the number of plaintiff First Nations, does not take into account the additional time and complex cultural issues and protocols required to identify, research, and develop the evidence of the Anishinaabe perspective.
Ceremony and Protocol for and at Court
[21] The Huron counsel took the lead on bringing Anishinaabe Ceremony and protocol to the court throughout the case management and the trial process.
[22] The entire court party attended Anishinaabe Ceremonies outside of the court process on a number of occasions. These events were all organized by the Huron counsel team (perhaps with assistance from the Superior team in Fort William First Nation).
[23] There were also Ceremonies at the court itself, in Thunder Bay and Sudbury, attended by both plaintiff and government counsel, including the Opening Ceremony, smudge ceremonies, maintenance of the sacred fire in a tipi adjacent to the court throughout the trial, the sunrise, Eagle Staff and Pipe ceremonies, and the closing/travelling Ceremonies. The unique way in which these Ceremonies were offered to the full court party was respectful and ground-breaking. The integration of Anishinaabe Ceremony and protocol within and around the traditional court process required the close collaboration between counsel and the First Nation representatives. This work was undertaken solely by the Huron plaintiff counsel team.
[24] Again, Ontario’s proposed 20% premium to reflect the greater number of Huron First Nations does not take this time and work into account.
Community Visits
[25] The court sat for two complete weeks in Garden River and on Manitoulin Island. The organization of these community weeks was done by the Huron plaintiffs. The preparation work with court services and the communities was extensive and self-evident. For each of the community sittings there were additional invitations to community Feasts and Ceremonies. These events required complex considerations to preserve the integrity of the trial process and maintain the confidence of the parties while respectfully accepting the hospitality of the host community. The community sittings as part of trial process were planned in the early stages of case management and the work involved was within the reasonable expectation of the parties.
Miscellaneous: Accounting for the Difference in Time
[26] In comparing the Huron and Superior cost claims, Ontario does not take into account the additional work done by the Hurons on the following matters. Nor does Ontario challenge the Huron claim that they did this work as described:
• Development of a full chronology as requested by the court;
• Development of a Protocol for taking the Evidence of Elders;
• Lead on Motion regarding Live Streaming;
• Lead on challenge to Ontario proposed witness L. Musio; and
• Significant challenges to two Huron witnesses: Bohaker and Corbiere.
Differences in Approaches in Early Stages Front End Work
[27] In their brief comments on the differences between the fees claimed by the 2 plaintiffs, the Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the fact that the Superior plaintiffs started their action in 2001 and proceeded through discovery, whereas the Huron plaintiffs started their action in 2014 and relied in part of the Superior discovery.[^5]
[28] The affidavit of Roger Jones explains that counsel for the Huron plaintiffs were retained in 2007 and spent the next seven years in research, and organization before filing their claim in 2014. The two statements of claim took different approaches, but both plaintiffs were ready to start trial by 2017. Though the approaches to the early phases of the litigation differed, the work done prior to filing the claim and structuring it ensured the efficient progress of the litigation.
[29] In addition, the oft-mentioned difference of 21 First Nations compared to 2 First Nations represented professional challenges in securing instructions and determining a single guiding approach to represent this diverse group. The Huron plaintiffs have explained how and why they spent from 2007 to 2014 preparing to file their claim. In hindsight, it is now easier to appreciate the significant advantage to the litigation that comes from this front-end work on the part of the plaintiffs to unify the entire group of Huron First Nations. On the other hand, it has recently taken significant time at Case Management Conferences and motions to deal with the complexity of bringing all of the Superior First Nation actual and contingent beneficiaries before the court. These additional party plaintiffs will participate in the Stage Three trial, albeit with separate counsel. In contrast, all of the Huron beneficiaries have been represented since the claim was filed, in no small measure because of the work done prior to filing the claim. As I understand it, the work of having all of the beneficiaries of each Treaty before the court also involves a coordinated and collective approach (for each of the Treaty groups) to remedies and damages, also of great benefit to the court process. The Huron plaintiffs undertook this work in the early phases of the matter, for which their time should be compensated. One assumes that the Superior plaintiffs will seek to claim their fees for corresponding work at a later point in the litigation.
The Inference respecting Over-lawyering/Duplication
[30] Ontario submits that the lack of detail in the cost review submissions leads to a “clear inference” that the hours claimed represent unreasonable duplication of work, over-lawyering, and other inefficiencies. They do not provide any other basis for this inference.
[31] Ontario does not negatively comment on the relevance, materiality or the substance of the evidence lead by the plaintiffs. Nor do they address the substance of the explanation provided by the plaintiffs.
[32] There is nothing in the submissions or on the face of the record that supports this inference. From my perch as the presiding judge throughout the close case management process and the trial, there were no signs that there was over-lawyering or duplication. It was evident that there was a clear distribution of work amongst senior counsel, with obvious areas of specific work allocation. Examinations, cross-examinations, and submissions were divided amongst counsel. Management of the enormous paper evidentiary record during the trial was a specific and clear assignment to a junior lawyer. Organization and consultation with respect to community visits, ceremonies and protocols was also clearly within the purview of a specific lawyer. Given the approach of the plaintiffs and the consequent broad scope of the Huron plaintiffs’ case, it was reasonable to split the work amongst a number of lawyers on the counsel team. To some extent, the Ontario counsel team also split the work, albeit for a case with a much more limited scope.
[33] Plaintiffs’ counsel regularly deferred to their colleagues both throughout the trial or case management process when questions or issues arose that were outside their specific area of work. However, I presume that in the preparation phase for this trial, the entire counsel team was required to familiarize themselves with the facts and the law, an enormous task. I do not characterize this as over-lawyering.
[34] In my view, the plaintiffs’ team was able to respond to issues raised either by the court or from the other parties and pivot in a nimble fashion. These are not characteristics of over-lawyering or duplication of work.
Reasonable Expectations of the parties
[35] The reasonable expectation of the parties is a relevant factor in the fixing of costs.[^6]
[36] As noted throughout, this litigation was case managed from its earliest days. The number of witnesses and the subject matter of their evidence was a matter of regular discussion. The trial schedule was determined in the case management process and the trial stayed on schedule. In other words, well before the trial, Ontario was aware of the witness list and schedule, had the expert reports/evidence in-chief and had agreed to how much time the witnesses would be on the stand. They also knew about and consented to the community visits. At case management meetings, counsel from all parties often referred to the preparation work being done. The Huron plaintiffs’ approach was known to all counsel. It would have been unreasonable to expect that the two plaintiff teams had the same amount of time invested in bringing the case to trial or at trial. The reasonable expectation of counsel would have been that the amount of time claimed by the Hurons would have been significantly greater than the Superior team, if only looking at the number of First Nations represented, the number of witnesses and the amount of trial time.
The Robinson Huron Trust
[37] The RHT was created as a vehicle to advise, seek instructions from and report to the 21 First Nations. Ontario submits that work related to setting up the RHT is not properly claimable as costs, that they represent internal client organizational matters beyond the subject matter of the litigation and would have been necessary to deal with payments by the Crown in any event.
[38] The plaintiffs explain that the RHT Trust is the mechanism for organizing the 21 First Nations into a single litigation vehicle capable of advancing the case as a representative action. It represents all the First Nations and all of the beneficiaries from the Treaty territory.
[39] The advantages to this approach are obvious; it eliminates the potential for a multiplicity of counsel teams advancing the interests of one or more First Nations, either duplicating efforts or raising inconsistent theories. With multiple representation, the risk of conflicting approaches to the law or the evidence is always present. Even if there is no conflict amongst different counsel representing separate First Nations, there is always the risk of competing and changing priorities, different approaches, timetabling complications, witness preferences and multiple relationships with the other parties. There is no doubt that the RHT which provided the structure for the plaintiff group, bringing 21 First Nations together with a stable management committee was an efficient and effective way to bring this collective action to court. The work related to bringing together the First Nations in a representative capacity made a significant positive contribution to the action.
[40] As Mr. Jones set out in his affidavit, the work of the Trust is steered by a Litigation Management Committee, made up of a stable group of community leaders to manage the multi-year litigation, while maintaining accountability to their communities.[^7] The stability of a leadership team to steer the trust reduces the risk of delay and worse throughout the cycles of leadership elections.
[41] Two features of the RHT made a particularly positive impact on efficient management of the litigation. The first was the ability of counsel to speak with authority at various stages of the action. Counsel were able to obtain instructions and when asked, to seek new instructions in a timely manner. I do not underestimate the challenge that this poses when the client is made up of 21 distinct First Nations. The government parties, who had their own time-consuming challenges when seeking instructions and authorization, would appreciate how important this feature was to the timely progress of the action.
[42] The second feature of the RHT that had a significant impact on the court process was that it brought all of the First Nations and all of the beneficiaries from the Treaty territory into the action from the outset. Again, the significance of this work is most evident when we see the risks attached to dealing with actual and contingent Treaty beneficiaries in the Superior action.
[43] Each Treaty territory and plaintiff group faced distinct issues. Ultimately, there is no way to avoid the work of bringing the plaintiff First Nations together in some fashion, whether it is done up front or later in the action. It was necessary work to bring this action to trial and to maintain the client relationship during the case management and trial process.
[44] Ontario claims that this work on the RHT is an “internal client organizational matter”. However, the legal structure to properly set up a Trust, with a litigation steering committee, could not have been put together without the advice and participation of the counsel team who were building this case. The affidavit of Mr. Jones describes in detail the long-term work involved in putting together the Trust and managing the First Nations so that there was on-going client support for this model that ultimately provided the unity and stability necessary for the effective prosecution of this case. This structure was legally sophisticated, and I would not expect lay clients to have initiated or managed it on their own.
[45] The work related to the creation and maintenance of the RHT was necessary work and properly claimed as fees for the prosecution of this case by the plaintiffs.
Pre-Litigation Work
[46] Ontario relies on Gelman v. 1529439 Ontario[^8] and takes the position that “the party seeking pre-litigation costs must persuade the court that it should use its discretion to award pre-litigation costs as a result of exceptional circumstances” which they have not done. However, in Gelman, Dietrich J. noted that the Trustee had performed only “information gathering” and a “review and analysis of relevant related proceedings” in the pre-litigation phase. The Trustee’s pre-litigation work in Gelman is markedly different than the work completed by the Huron plaintiffs to prepare and advance their claims which was not only incidental to their claim but was also necessary to it.
[47] Ontario also argued that it is an error in principle to award pre-application costs, based on Greenlight Capital, Inc. v. Stronach.[^9] This case is distinguished from the case here where the pre-litigation costs were reasonable, necessary, and served to advance the Huron plaintiffs’ successful claims.
[48] Ontario also cites Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)[^10] where Perell J. decided against awarding costs to the Inuit Representatives and the Assembly of First Nations on the basis that they did not have any reasonable expectation that the government would cover their costs of preparing for or participating in a meeting about the Enhanced Notice Program respecting the management of Residential School records. Fontaine is also distinguishable from the case at bar for two reasons; it took place within the legislative and procedural framework of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, a “special and unique jurisdiction”[^11] and secondly, the meetings in dispute were initiated by the government and the government’s invitation did not express any intention to cover the parties’ costs. These circumstances are markedly different than the circumstances of this litigation.
[49] The Jones’ affidavit explains in detail the necessity of the pre-litigation work to bring this Treaty claim to court. It was obvious throughout the case management and trial process that the pre-litigation work had a significant impact on the ability of the plaintiffs to advance their case. From their involvement in the case management process, Ontario should have reasonably expected that the work done to bring the bring the plaintiffs to the point of commencing the litigation was substantial. It would not be reasonable for the First Nations to bear the financial burden of overcoming the challenges presented by the century and a half of inaction by the government parties.
Conclusion
[50] The awarding of costs must take into account the factors in r. 57.01(3). It is not controversial that this case is at the highest level of complexity, the issues are of enormous importance to parties, to the whole of north-eastern Ontario and to the work of Crown Indigenous reconciliation. This case can be viewed from many perspectives, and from all of them, the stakes are very high.
[51] Ontario claims that the plaintiffs have not provided detailed information regarding particular tasks performed by each lawyer or the hours each lawyer spent on those tasks. However, the painstaking task of line-by-line analysis of dockets would not have been an efficient or effective means to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the claim for costs. Nor would it have helped the court take into account the reasonable expectation of the parties. The fixing of costs does not begin or end with as a simple calculation of hours times rates. It is not a simple mathematical exercise.[^12] Taking into consideration the submissions, the results of the litigation, the two plaintiff groups’ different approaches and the guidance from the Court of Appeal, I find that the Huron plaintiffs’ claim for costs to be reasonable. The question posed by the Ontario Court of Appeal has been satisfactorily answered.
[52] The assessment of a cost award is based on whether the costs claimed are fair and reasonable and whether they are within the reasonable expectations of the parties. Ontario defended this litigation with a well-supported team of experienced counsel, paralegals, and outside professionals. They knew from the outset that the Huron plaintiffs represented 21 First Nations, had more witnesses than the Superior plaintiffs, and created an evidentiary record and court experience of the Anishinaabe perspective. There was no suggestion during the pre-trial stage that this evidentiary record or these witnesses were unnecessary, unreasonable, or unexpected. Ontario was also aware from the outset that the Huron plaintiffs had organized the plaintiff First Nations into a group, represented by the RHT, that allowed counsel to speak with authority and support throughout the process. Ontario participated in the community-based hearings and saw the work involved in coordination, planning and presentation of Ceremony and protocols. None of this work, for which the Huron plaintiffs now claim fees was unknown to them and should not have been outside their reasonable expectations.
[53] The many and enormous challenges posed by putting together the evidentiary record of this case exists because the alleged Treaty violations have taken place over a period of more than 150 years. To advance this action, these plaintiffs decided to bring that historical perspective into the litigation. Their approach was plainly discussed throughout the case management process. There were no surprises in the trial. There was no suggestion that their approach was unreasonable.
[54] When assessing the fees claimed by the Huron plaintiffs, and in light of the fees claimed and upheld for Superior plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ costs are fair and reasonable. They are also proportionate and commensurate with the value of the lawsuit to the parties: the impact of this action on Indigenous Government relations, on north-eastern Ontario communities and on the ultimate economic impact on the First Nations is significant, broad, and deep. It would be contrary to the interests of justice to impose a discounted cost award.
The Honourable Madam Justice Patricia C. Hennessy
Released: May 31, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: C-3512-14 & C3512-14A and 2001-0673
DATE: 2022-05-31
Mike Restoule, Patsy Corbiere, Duke Peltier, Peter Recollet, Dean Sayers and Roger Daybutch, on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Ojibewa (Anishinaabe) Nation who are beneficiaries of the Robinson Huron Treaty Of 1850
Plaintiffs
– and –
The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Defendants
- and -
The Red Rock First Nation and the Whitesand First Nation
Third Parties
RECONSIDERATION OF STAGE ONE COSTS
Hennessy, J.
Released: May 31, 2022
[^1]: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779. [^2]: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, at para. 358. [^3]: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, at para. 355. [^4]: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, at para 351. [^5]: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONCA 779, at para. 352. [^6]: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. C.A.) [Boucher], at para. 38. [^7]: Affidavit of Roger Jones, at para. 48. [^8]: 2021 ONSC 424 [Gelman]. [^9]: 2008 CanLII 34359 (ON SCDC), [2008] O.J. No. 2749 [Greenlight]. [^10]: 2018 ONSC 4771 [Fontaine]. [^11]: Fontaine, at para. 40. [^12]: Boucher, at para. 26.