Federal Court of Appeal schedules hearing for environmental law case

This week, hearings set before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court included class actions and matters relating to an environmental assessment, an admiralty contract, Charter rights, and allegations of unjust enrichment and systemic negligence.

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal court scheduled Sierra Club Canada Foundation et al. v. Minister of Environment and Climate, A-238-23 on Nov. 18, Monday. This appeal arose from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s environmental assessment of the Bay du Nord development project. The assessment found the project unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change then made a decision under ss. 27(1), 52(1), 53, and 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 that approved the environmental assessment. This appeal wanted to set aside a Federal Court judgment dismissing the appellants’ judicial review application challenging the minister’s decision.

Federal Court

The court set Collins v. Attorney General of Canada et al, T-2044-19 on Nov. 18, Monday. In this certified class action, the plaintiff claimed that Canada changed the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band and improperly entered into the 2013 Supplemental Agreement, which led to the rejection of those otherwise qualified for membership.

The action sought damages for alleged unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The plaintiff then moved to appeal a case management judge’s order dated Aug. 9, 2023.

Last Apr. 25, in Collins v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 636, the Federal Court dismissed the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to show an overriding and palpable error on the part of the case management judge.

The court scheduled Mohammad v. McGill University et al., T-2322-24 on Nov. 19, Tuesday. The plaintiff in this case challenged the accuracy and validity of the findings of a research study. The plaintiff suggested that there might be a misuse of public funds to support flawed research.

The plaintiff moved for an order compelling the defendants to produce specific materials relevant to the case and called for the production of raw data from the study, email communications between the authors, and communications between the defendants.

Last Oct. 25, in Mohammad v. McGill University, 2024 FC 1700, the Federal Court dismissed the motion on the basis that the plaintiff should have brought it at a pre-trial conference. This motion did not fall under the exceptions in r. 298(2)–(3) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, the court said.

The court set Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd. v. The Ship "Rosy" and Rosy Marine Corp., T-1666-19 on Nov. 20, Wednesday. The plaintiff in this admiralty case sought the sum of $847,487 plus interest and costs from the defendant, who allegedly wrongfully repudiated the charter of a ship.

The defendant, whose ship was arrested in Montreal in October 2019, moved to fix bail at $328,535, plus 30-percent uplift for interest and costs, for the ship’s release. In December 2019, in Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd. v. The Rosy (Ship), 2019 FC 1572, the Federal Court fixed the amount of bail at $1,101,733.10.

The court set Corriveau v. His Majesty the King, T-138-19 on Nov. 22, Friday. The underlying certified class proceeding alleged against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police systemic negligence of its servants in failing to provide the class members with medical examinations free of sexual assault, battery, and inappropriate and unnecessary procedures.

The defendant filed a motion seeking particulars, additional documents, and certain discovery. Last July 31, in Corriveau v. Canada, 2024 FC 1219, the Federal Court partly granted the motion for particulars and dismissed the motion for an updated affidavit of documents and further discovery.