Canada Case Law

Ontario Place Protectors v. Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The application judge erred in refusing public interest standing, but s.17 of ROPA does not violate s.96 because it preserves applications for judicial review and their remedies and extinguishing causes of action does not remove the superior courts' core jurisdiction; additionally the appellant failed to establish that a public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law or that ROPA breaches it; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Public interest standing
• Judicial review
• Section 96 constitution act 1867
• Crown immunity
• Public trust doctrine
• Statutory immunity

Read case analysis

La Rose v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part: it held the section 7 Charter claims are justiciable but that the existing pleadings are overly broad and lack the necessary focus and causal particularity and thus must be struck with leave to amend; it upheld striking without leave to amend the claims based on the public trust doctrine, section 15 adverse-effect discrimination, and the proposed reading of the general POGG power as imposing positive legislative duties, because those claims disclose no reasonable cause of action.

Source excerpt

• Justiciability
• Section 7 charter (life, liberty, security of the person)
• Section 15 charter (equality)
• Public trust doctrine
• Peace, order and good government (pogg)
• Causation and pleading requirements

Read case analysis

Bancroft v. Nova Scotia (Lands and Forestry)

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence establishing withdrawal of the developer and subsequent designation of Owls Head as a provincial park eliminated the live controversy; the fresh evidence was admissible and the appeal is therefore moot; the Borowski factors do not justify exercising discretion to hear the moot appeal because no adversarial context or recurring evanescent issue exists and adoption of a public trust doctrine would constitute a novel legal change inappropriate in the absence of a live dispute.

Source excerpt

• Mootness
• Fresh evidence
• Public trust doctrine
• Crown lands designation
• Justiciability
• Legislative vs common law change

Read case analysis

Bancroft v. Nova Scotia (Lands and Forestry)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court dismissed the application: the Treasury and Policy Board, not the Minister, made the PAPA de-listing; the Board’s decision was justiciable and reviewable on a reasonableness standard and was reasonable on the record; there is no recognized common law public trust duty requiring procedural fairness to the public at large and recognition of such a doctrine would be a non-permissible, non-incremental change better left to the legislature; the Minister’s conditional Letter of Offer was premature for review.

Source excerpt

• Public trust doctrine
• Procedural fairness
• Justiciability
• Reasonableness review
• Crown lands disposal

Read case analysis

La Rose v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

Motion to strike in a youth climate Charter case granted. The Federal Court held the section 7 and 15 claims were non-justiciable and the public trust claim failed.

• Justiciability
• Section 7 charter
• Section 15 charter
• Public trust doctrine
• Motion to strike
• Motion-to-strike

Read case analysis

Douglas Lake Cattle Company v. Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a club’s request for advance costs, finding it had not shown impecuniosity or that the dispute was sufficiently public in nature.

• Advance costs in public interest litigation
• Public access to waterways
• Ownership of fish
• Highway designation (transportation act s.42)
• Crown grants and natural boundary doctrine
• Public trust doctrine

Read case analysis

Burns Bog Conservation Society v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

There is no legal duty owed by Canada to protect Burns Bog because Canada does not own the land, the Covenant, Management Agreement and Management Plan do not impose positive obligations on Canada and expressly disclaim fiduciary/tort duties, and no recognized public trust or statutory duty arises on these facts; therefore the claim is bound to fail and summary judgment was appropriate.

Source excerpt

• Public trust doctrine
• Fiduciary duty
• Conservation covenant
• Summary judgment
• Statutory duty to protect environment
• Honour of the crown analogy

Read case analysis

Burns Bog Conservation Society v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted summary judgment for Canada, holding the plaintiff had shown no viable contractual, trust, fiduciary, or statutory duty to protect Burns Bog.

• Public trust doctrine
• Fiduciary duty
• Summary judgment
• Conservation covenant
• Statutory interpretation
• Environmental assessment

Read case analysis

Leamy v. The King

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the navigable stretch of the Gatineau River remained Crown domain and was not passed by an 1806 grant silent on the river bed.

• Navigability
• Ownership of river beds
• Crown grants
• Public trust doctrine
• Prescription (possession)
• Division of federal and provincial powers

Read case analysis