Taylor George Russell Andreas

The decision addresses motions by the Attorney General of Canada and the Corporation of the City of Kenora to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim as statute-barred under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs, three Anishinaabe Nations, seek the return of or a declaration of trust over lands known as Anicinabe Park, alleging breaches of statutory, fiduciary, and constitutional duties by Canada and Kenora.

The Court finds that it is not plain and obvious, on the pleadings, that the lands were not reserve lands or that the claim does not arise from a treaty right.

As such, the Real Property Limitations Act does not clearly bar the claim, and the motions are dismissed.

This decision concerns a dispute over the legal and beneficial ownership of lands surrendered by several First Nations to Canada in 1908, known as the Unsold Surrendered Lands (USL), including the Point Park and associated roads in Fort Frances, Ontario.

The Town of Fort Frances sought summary judgment declaring it the owner of these lands or, alternatively, a public trust or entitlement to damages.

The First Nations, Canada, and Ontario opposed, seeking dismissal of the Town’s claims.

The court found that the Agency One Reserve was a validly created reserve, that the 1908 Order-in-Council (OIC) did not convey the USL to the Town by fee simple or public trust, and that the Town’s claims to the lands, roads, and damages were without merit.

The Town’s motion was dismissed, and the counterclaim struck.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion for security for costs against Telecore, a corporate plaintiff, in a procurement action.

The court considered whether the AGC required leave to bring the motion, the sufficiency of Telecore’s assets, and whether Telecore was impecunious.

The court found Telecore to be impecunious but determined that the AGC’s delay in bringing the motion was not justified.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and no costs were awarded on the motion.

The applicant, an inmate serving a life sentence, applied for habeas corpus challenging his involuntary transfer from a minimum-security to a medium-security institution.

The applicant argued the transfer decision was based on erroneous information and that his misconduct did not warrant a medium-security classification.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Correctional Service of Canada's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The record demonstrated the applicant's repeated institutional misconduct, including employment suspensions and unauthorized attendance in restricted areas, which supported the finding that he required a moderate degree of supervision.

The application was dismissed, and nominal costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a federal inmate with a lengthy history of fraudulent behaviour, sought judicial review of a decision by the Parole Board of Canada Appeal Division affirming the revocation of his statutory release by the Parole Board.

The applicant's release had been suspended three times for various breaches of conditions and lack of transparency with his Case Management Team.

The Federal Court found that the Board's conclusion that the applicant posed an undue risk to society was reasonable, justified, and transparent.

The Court also held that the tribunals reasonably dismissed allegations of bias against the CMT and adequately considered the applicant's vulnerability to COVID-19.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a federal inmate, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to challenge his reclassification from medium to maximum security and subsequent involuntary transfer.

The court found the Correctional Service of Canada's decision to be reasonable and procedurally fair, based on a holistic review of the applicant's conduct, including involvement in contraband importation and prior misconducts.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant, a permanent resident, sought judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision refusing to deal with his complaint that the Canada Revenue Agency's hiring policy, which prefers Canadian citizens, is discriminatory.

The Commission found the complaint frivolous because citizenship is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The Court also held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine the applicant's constitutional challenge to the Act.