36779    First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, Tr’Ondëk Hwëch’in, Yukon Chapter-Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Yukon Conservation Society, Gill Cracknell, Karen Baltgailis, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation v. Government of Yukon

(Y.T.)

Aboriginal law — Treaties and agreements — Construction and interpretation

The Nacho Nyak Dun, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and Vuntut Gwitchin have traditional territory in the Peel Watershed, which covers approximately 68,000 square kilometers representing 14% of the Yukon. On May 29, 1993, Canada, Yukon and the Yukon First Nations, represented by the Council for Yukon Indians, entered into an Umbrella Final Agreement (“UFA”). Its terms were incorporated into the Final Agreements of Canada and Yukon with various First Nations including Nacho Nyak Dun, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and Vuntut Gwitchin. The terms established a consultative and collaborative process for the development of land use plans in various regions, including the Peel Watershed. The process required an independent planning Commission to create an initial Recommended Plan, and Yukon to consult on that plan before approving, rejecting or proposing modifications to it (s. 11.6.2). The Commission was then required to reconsider the plan and propose a Final Recommended Plan, followed by another obligation on Yukon to consult on that plan before final approval, rejection, or modification of it (s. 11.6.3.2).

In this case that process began for the Peel Watershed in 2004 and led to the creation of the Recommended Plan in late 2009. The process broke down in 2012 when Yukon changed the plan over the objections of the First Nations, who took the position that Yukon did not have the authority under the Final Agreements to make the changes it had made. The Government of Yukon had provided very general suggestions at the s. 11.6.2 stage, and then proposed its own plan at the s. 11.6.3.2 stage. The Nacho Nyak Dun, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and others commenced an action against Yukon. The trial judge held that Yukon had breached the Final Agreements when it changed the land use plan for the Peel Watershed. The judge quashed Yukon’s final land use plan and ordered that the process be remitted to the point in time at which Yukon came to engage in final consultation with the First Nations. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s order quashing the Government Plan. However, the Court of Appeal ordered that the matter be remitted to the point at which Yukon had received the Recommended Plan.

36875   Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., Through its Special Receiver and Manager Roman Doroniuk

(Ont.)

Law of Professions – Professional liability – Auditors

Livent Inc. was a publicly traded company. In 1998, new management discovered serious accounting irregularities in its financial records and restated its revenues and expenses. Trading in Livent shares was suspended. Livent’s founders were convicted for fraud. Class actions were commenced against Livent. Livent was placed into receivership. Deloitte & Touche, now Deloitte LLP., was Livent’s auditor between 1989 and 1998. Deloitte prepared year-end financial statements and financial statements for seven share offerings and private placements. In 2001, Livent, through its receiver, commenced an action against Deloitte alleging that its audits between 1992 and 1998 did not meet generally accepted auditing standards. Livent alleged Deloitte was negligent in failing to detect the fraud and Deloitte’s negligence caused it to realize a value on its assets upon liquidation less than it would have realised had Deloitte discovered and disclosed the fraud. The trial judge found Deloitte negligent in respect to some of its audits and awarded Livent $84,750,000 in damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal and a cross-appeal.

36752   City of Montréal v. Nousla Dorval, Nouslaine Dorval, Jolène Bien-Aimée

(Que.)

Civil liability — Bodily injury — Prescription

The respondents are members of the family of Maria Altagracia Dorval, who was murdered by her former spouse in October 2010. In October 2013, they filed a motion to institute proceedings claiming damages from the City of Montréal based on the inaction of its police force and the police officers of whom it was the principal, which had led to Ms. Dorval’s death. They claimed damages on behalf of the late Ms. Dorval’s succession for suffering, pain and inconvenience because of constant harassment by her former spouse and police inaction, and personally for solatium doloris, funeral expenses and loss of emotional support. The City of Montréal filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the direct personal action in damages brought by the mediate or indirect victims as a result of the death was prescribed by s. 586 of the Cities and Towns Act, CQLR, c. C‑19. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion to dismiss. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the motion to dismiss.

36915   Pellerin Savitz LLP v. Serge Guindon

(Que.)

Prescription – Action on personal right – Date when right of action arises

The respondent Serge Guindon retained the professional services of the applicant law firm, Pellerin Savitz LLP, to defend him in litigation before the Superior Court. During the performance of the mandate, the applicant sent the respondent five accounts for fees between October 5, 2011 and March 1, 2012. None of the accounts was paid. On March 21, 2012, the respondent informed the applicant that he was withdrawing the mandate. On March 10, 2015, the applicant brought an action against the respondent to recover claims for unpaid fees. The respondent asked that the action be dismissed because the claims arising from the unpaid accounts for professional fees were prescribed. The Court of Quebec dismissed the action. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for the sole purpose of ordering payment of balance.