14 total
Pleadings in land claim found to seek only monetary relief, not recovery of Crown lands.
At a trial management conference, an issue arose as to whether the plaintiff's pleadings in an Indigenous land claim action sought the recovery of Crown lands or merely monetary relief for alleged breaches of duty.
The court ruled that determining this issue before trial was necessary.
Analyzing the pleadings, the court found the claim exclusively sought equitable compensation, damages, and accounting, and did not properly plead any present-day interest in or right to recover actual Crown land in the Haldimand Tract.
The court adjourned a case conference to allow parties to resolve disputes over expert reports and trial length.
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.
The court issued procedural directions regarding expert evidence scheduling, trial timetables, and trial presentation software.
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 court set a litigation timetable prioritizing realistic deadlines and accommodating expert illness.
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.
Motion to amend statement of claim granted and cross-motion to strike pleadings by example dismissed.
The plaintiff, Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, brought a motion to amend its statement of claim in a long-standing action concerning the Haldimand Tract.
The defendants did not oppose the amendments but sought extensive time to deliver responding expert reports.
The Attorney General of Canada brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the claim that pleaded breaches of duty 'by example'.
The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that pleading by example was appropriate given the plaintiff's claim for a complete accounting.
The court granted the motion to amend and set a timeline for the defendants to deliver responding expert evidence, rejecting the defendants' request for a multi-year extension based on their internal retention processes.
Costs of $90,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
The court ordered Canada to pay $150,000 in interim costs for pre-trial expert examinations but awarded no costs for the motion.
The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion seeking leave to examine three expert witnesses before trial.
The parties largely resolved the motion, leaving the court to adjudicate the quantum of interim costs payable by Canada to the plaintiff (Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians) and the costs of the motion.
The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in interim costs to indemnify for financial prejudice due to duplicated work and early incurred expenses from the pre-trial examinations.
The court declined to award costs for the motion itself, finding that all parties had compromised their positions and no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award.
The court denied the defendants' request to vacate expert report deadlines pending a pleadings motion.
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.
The court issued procedural directions for upcoming intervention motions in a complex Indigenous litigation.
This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, the Attorney General of Canada, and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.
Key issues include determining the venue for upcoming intervention motions, managing requests for participation from individuals in response to public notices, addressing the filing of a redacted motion record to protect privacy, setting procedures for evidentiary objections, approving a minor change to the online notice regarding hearing dates, and providing detailed CaseLines directions for electronic document management.
The court provided specific instructions for each of these procedural aspects to ensure the efficient and transparent progression of the litigation.
The court scheduled a motion to amend pleadings and required specific justifications before extending the expert report deadline.
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.
Further case management conference scheduled to address proposed amendments to the statement of claim.
A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.
The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.
The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.
A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.
The court issued procedural directions adjusting the timetable, finalizing notice, and addressing venue for intervention motions.
This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in ongoing litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians against the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.
The endorsement finalizes the content of a notice for intervention motions, adjusts the timetable for cross-examinations and factum deliveries, resolves confidentiality concerns regarding expert reports appended to motion materials, and confirms the venue for intervention motion hearings.
Court resolves procedural issues regarding community notice and intervener pleadings in Indigenous land claim.
A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.
The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.
The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.
Procedural directions issued for pleadings clarification, expert report timetables, and confidentiality in Aboriginal land claim.
A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.
The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.
The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.
The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.
Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.
Court set intervention process and timetable in historic Indigenous land claim.
In a long-running Indigenous land claim concerning alleged Crown breaches of fiduciary and treaty obligations arising from the Haldimand Proclamation and Simcoe Patent, the court issued a case conference endorsement setting the process for forthcoming intervention motions.
The court declined to make case conferences public, but directed broader notice to affected Haudenosaunee communities and supported creation of a website containing publicly filed materials.
The court rejected, at this stage, informal in situ proceedings to gather process submissions or appointment of an amicus curiae, while indicating the intervention motions should be heard in person on the lands at issue if feasible, failing which in Brantford.
A timetable was fixed to move the intervention motions forward efficiently while allowing additional interested groups time to participate.
