Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tax Court struck the appellant’s October 6, 2025 Notice of Constitutional Question, but granted leave to amend it to specify the Charter, Treaty 5, and Indian Act provisions relied on.
The Federal Court dismissed certification of this Treaty 4 annuity claim as a class proceeding and allowed it to continue as a representative action.
The Tribunal reasonably concluded that, on its face, the Declaration of Claim was based on treaty harvesting rights which are expressly excluded from Tribunal jurisdiction by paragraph 15(1)(g) of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act and that harvesting rights do not constitute "other assets" under paragraphs 14(1)(a) or (c) because the Act defines assets as "tangible property"; accordingly the strike under paragraph 17(a) was reasonable.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed four long-running Treaty 8 and Indian Act claims, denied representative standing, and held the claims were statute-barred and largely beyond its jurisdiction.
The court dismissed a motion to strike portions of the Province’s amended response concerning the Nisga’a Final Agreement, finding the pleadings were not plainly defective.
Appeal dismissed. The court held the Nisg̱a'a Nation had not shown a statutory or treaty right to be added as a defendant and upheld the case management order.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of the Blood Tribe ratification vote, finding no jurisdiction and, alternatively, no procedural unfairness or Indian Act breach.
Applying Rule 147(3) factors collectively, the court found the Respondent wholly successful, with substantial amounts in issue, important and complex treaty issues, and significant volume of work; however a near-full indemnity (92%) was unreasonable. The court therefore awarded a reasonable partial indemnity contribution of $300,000 toward the Respondent's legal fees and allowed $11,812.37 for the expert who filed a report and testified but disallowed the disbursement for the non-testifying expert.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the trial judge: Treaty No. 9’s reserve clause and historical context demonstrate the parties’ common intention that reserve sizing be based on population at the time Commissioners met (adhesion in 1906); the trial judge’s factual findings were supported and entitled to deference; precedents cited by appellants were distinguishable; breaches of treaty implementation do not change the crystallization date; the post‑trial Settlement Agreement was admissible as fresh evidence, the sealing order was lifted because material was public via the OIC, and Canada’s motion to dismiss th…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the Nisga'a Nation's application to be added as a defendant in a Gitanyow Aboriginal title claim, but ordered a later conference on statutory notice and participation rights.
Explore more
