Indigenous Legal Issues - SCJ

This endorsement addresses costs arising from multiple motions and applications.

Andrew Clifford Miracle's applications (vexatious litigant, security for costs, bankruptcy motion) were dismissed.

Glenn Bogue's motions (solicitors' lien, summary judgment) were largely successful.

Rod Gram's summary judgment motion was dismissed, but his motion to dismiss Miracle's counterclaim was granted.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Glenn Bogue for his successful motions and to the Receiver for an abandoned motion by Miracle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Miracle's conduct not egregious enough, and reserved costs between Gram and Miracle.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.

The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.

These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).

Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.

The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.

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.

An offender was found guilty of second-degree murder of an Indigenous victim.

The Crown sought a 13-year parole ineligibility period, citing the offender's extensive criminal record, history of violence, and non-compliance with court orders.

The defence requested the minimum 10-year parole ineligibility, emphasizing the impact of colonialism and intergenerational trauma on the offender, as detailed in a Gladue report, and his struggles with substance abuse and mental health.

The court considered the sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence, balanced against the Gladue factors, and the jury's recommendation.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for 10 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and a communication prohibition.

The defendants requested an extension of time to deliver their amended statements of defence or motion materials in response to the plaintiff's forthcoming amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff opposed the extension for the defence but agreed to an extension for costs submissions.

The court granted the defendants' request, extending all timelines to thirty days for all parties.

The plaintiff First Nation brought a hybrid motion seeking to determine an issue of law before trial, amend its statement of claim to increase damages to $2 billion and add particulars regarding the 'Headlands Issue', and compel answers to questions refused during discovery.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they asserted a new, statute-barred cause of action, lacked a necessary party (Canada), and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion to determine an issue of law, finding the factual record was disputed.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, holding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were statute-barred or doomed to fail without Canada, but required the plaintiff to deliver a technically compliant pleading.

The refusals motion was largely dismissed, with only four questions ordered to be answered.

This decision addresses a motion for costs brought by self-represented defendants, Michael Malouf and his companies, after the plaintiff, Ginoogaming First Nation, discontinued its action against them.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's action against them was frivolous.

The court found the plaintiff's initial action was bona fide and not vexatious, and that there was no reprehensible conduct to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Applying principles for self-represented litigants, the court rejected the defendants' claimed hourly rate and excessive hours, finding only a modest unquantified lost opportunity cost.

The court awarded a lump sum for lost opportunity costs related to preparing the statement of defence and a change of venue motion, excluding costs already dealt with in previous injunction motions and work done after the notice of discontinuance.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation.

It sets a timetable for a forthcoming motion by the Attorney General of Canada regarding the taking of evidence from certain witnesses before trial.

The court also noted Ontario's expected late delivery of expert reports, discussed the parties' differing estimates for trial length and scheduled a follow-up conference, and provided guidance on addressing concerns about trial presentation software (CaseLines).

This class action concerned historical sexual abuse perpetrated by Ralph Rowe, an Anglican priest and Scout leader, against Indigenous boys in remote communities.

The court approved a $13.25 million settlement, which included a unique trauma-informed claims process with two tracks (simplified Schedule A up to $140,000, and more rigorous Schedule B up to $350,000).

The settlement also provided for apologies from the Anglican Church of Canada and Scouts Canada, and funding for counselling.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, emphasizing the benefits of timely resolution and the innovative, claimant-centric claims protocol.

Brendan Bananish pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown sought a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation and an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The defence opposed the LTO designation and sought a shorter sentence.

The court designated Bananish an LTO, imposed a global penitentiary sentence of seven years and three months (with 63 months credit for pre-sentence custody), and ordered an eight-year Long-Term Supervision Order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court considered Bananish's extensive criminal record, history of intimate partner violence, psychiatric diagnoses (antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, severe substance use disorder), and repeated breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging his Indigenous background and related systemic factors.

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.

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.

The accused, Joseph Gingras, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and arson causing damage to property.

The charges stemmed from an incident where, while intoxicated, he poured gasoline on himself and the victim, Thomas Boissoneau, in an attempt to dissuade Boissoneau from suicidal ideations, leading to a fire that severely burned Boissoneau and destroyed a residence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severe impact on victims and the inherently dangerous conduct, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, remorse, and the accused's Indigenous background, which necessitated the application of Gladue principles.

The court imposed a global sentence of six-and-a-half years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitation efforts.

This motion sought approval for the notice of certification and notice plan in a class proceeding concerning toxic mold in housing on Long Lake No. 58 First Nation's reserve.

The court approved the proposed notice, finding it clear and easy to understand, and the opt-out procedure straightforward.

The court also approved the notice plan, which included delivery by mail, posting on Facebook, and at community offices, and confirmed that notice only in English was appropriate given the class members' language.

The Town of Fort Frances, as plaintiff by counterclaim, brought a motion to compel the First Nations, Canada, and Ontario to answer questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The refused questions sought the defendants' legal positions on historical documents and the disclosure of a 2018 Settlement Agreement between the First Nations, Canada, and Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the questions regarding historical documents were in the nature of discovery and beyond the proper scope of cross-examination on an affidavit.

The court also held that the 2018 Settlement Agreement was protected by settlement privilege and did not need to be disclosed, as it did not change the ongoing litigation landscape of the Town's counterclaim.

Three Indigenous sisters sued their former foster mother and the Attorney General of Canada for abuse and loss of culture.

The plaintiffs were placed with their non-Indigenous aunt and uncle in the 1960s.

The court found that the foster mother physically and emotionally abused the plaintiffs, treating them as servants and disparaging their Indigenous heritage.

The court also found that Canada breached its fiduciary duty by shelving plans to return the children to their First Nation in Saskatchewan, resulting in a profound loss of culture, language, and identity.

The plaintiffs were awarded $100,000 each in general damages (joint and several), $10,000 each in punitive damages against the foster mother, and $150,000 each against Canada for loss of culture.

Johnathon McKay pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the prolonged and brutal beating death of Nazareth Kwandibens.

The court accepted a joint submission for an 8-year incarceration sentence, with credit for time served.

The decision considered the accused's Indigenous background and the principles of Gladue and Ipeelee, acknowledging systemic and background factors affecting his responsibility, alongside aggravating factors like the violence and victim impact, and mitigating factors like remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The defendant, Sean Ledoux, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to sexual assault after having unprotected vaginal sex with a friend who was unconscious due to alcohol and drug intoxication.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus probation, emphasizing Gladue principles and mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, victim vulnerability, duration of the assault, lack of condom use, and profound psychological and financial harm to the victim, who is a Queer Black woman.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's guilty plea, genuine remorse, compliance with bail, pro-social behaviour, care for his nephew, his mother's illness, and his Indigenous background marked by intergenerational trauma and alcohol abuse.

Applying the principles from R. v. R.S., the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for the seriousness of the offence, requiring an institutional sentence for denunciation and deterrence.

However, due to the compelling Gladue principles and other mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation, which is below the typical range for such offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, weapons prohibitions, and SOIRA registration.

The appellants, two First Nation individuals with no prior criminal records, appealed their sentences for obstructing police.

They were found guilty after a multi-day trial for interfering with a search warrant at an unlicensed cannabis store on a reserve.

The sentencing judge imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by two years' probation, exceeding the Crown's recommendation of a suspended sentence with 12 months' probation and a fine/community service.

Co-accused with criminal records who pleaded guilty received suspended sentences.

The appeal court found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to provide cogent reasons for exceeding the Crown's position, misapplying the principles of parity, restraint, and the sentencing of Indigenous and first offenders, and over-emphasizing denunciation and deterrence without considering the potential of a suspended sentence to achieve these goals.

The appeal was granted, and a suspended sentence with a one-year period of probation was imposed.

This temporary care and custody hearing involved three Indigenous children affiliated with Caldwell First Nations.

The Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin sought to place the eldest child (L.A.) with the father and the two younger children (M.W. and H.W.) with the mother, subject to supervision.

The father opposed, seeking custody of all three.

The court, applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the paramount An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, found that L.A. could remain with the father under terms.

However, M.W. and H.W. were at risk of physical and emotional harm with the father due to ongoing verbal and physical abuse, neglect, and the father's non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court ordered M.W. and H.W. into the temporary care of the mother, with terms to ensure their safety and cultural connection.