In Beaver v Hill, the Court of Appeal, while not disposing of the issue, determined that some Aboriginal and treaty rights may be capable of being asserted by an individual, rather than an Aboriginal community. In this case, the appellant argued that spousal and child support should be decided under his First Nation’s law, not under Ontario’s family law statutes. The issue was remanded to the Superior Court of Justice to be determined on a proper evidentiary record.
Other topics covered this week included a priority dispute between insurers under the Insurance Act in the MVA context, and the ability to claim HST from a customer well after the supply of the good in question.
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Shah v LG Chem Ltd, 2018 ONCA 819
Keywords: Torts, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Statutory Claims, Price Fixing, Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Certification, Common Issues, Representative Plaintiff, Pleadings, Reasonable Cause of Action, Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 6, s 5, Competition Act, RSC, 1985, c C-34, ss 36 and 45
Beaver v Hill, 2018 ONCA 816
Keywords: Family Law, Aboriginal Law, Constitutional Law, Aboriginal Self-Governance, Jurisdiction, Spousal Support, Child Support, Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35, Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3, Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507, Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 56, Behn v Moulton Contracting Ltd, 2013 SCC 26, R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075
Please log in to read the full article.