Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. Ontario

In a civil procedure matter dealing with a case involving seized cigarettes, an Ontario judge adjourned the case sine die until another matter is adjudicated.  Six Nations only wanted it adjourned until some time in July, while Ontario requested the sine die adjournment.  The judge blamed Six Nations for the manner in which it “has chosen to conduct the litigation.”

 The parties agree that the duration of the hearing of this application is such that it cannot be accommodated on a regular motions list, and that, accordingly, it must be adjourned. Where the parties differ is as to how the adjournment is to be made. The applicant wishes the application to be adjourned to a date in July 2011, at which time it is expected to proceed. The respondent asks that the adjournment be granted sine die. That, if allowed, would, in practical terms at least, delay the hearing of this application while another matter is adjudicated. That other matter is the first in a series of ten applications, all brought by this applicant, and all relating to the seizure of tobacco products from it by the respondent purportedly pursuant to the Tobacco Tax Act. This particular application is the eighth in that series.

 I do not accept the applicant’s argument that the first application is so bogged down in procedural wrangling that the eighth must proceed now in order to have justice done quickly. I do not do so primarily because, based upon the evidence before me, much, if not most, of the delay has been caused by how the applicant has chosen to conduct the litigation. While on its face the Tobacco Tax Act provides for a relatively simple process to address tobacco seizures by means of application, it does not, in my view, give rise to a right to some kind of special application that is not subject to the usual rules that govern that process. It certainly does not usurp the Court’s right to control its own process.

One thought on “Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. Ontario

  1. Dave June 12, 2013 / 6:41 am

    The way the treaties and discussions were meant were to protect the native people and their indigenous rights.
    Canada, even though they say they uphold that responsability, have been trying to eliminate their “Indian problem” ever since they realized that Indians took them at their word.
    Responsabilities like dental and medicial were assured. Now they slowly cut away at their obligations.
    They create laws when something doesn’t suit them and implement them on other nations.
    Canada is a place that tells other counties to treat their natives better but tries to elliminate its own.
    Bill c-31 is a prime example as well as residential schools.
    None of this is taught in schools in “native studies” in Canada.

Comments are closed.