Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG)

Last updated
Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG)
Osgoode Hall May 2012.jpg
Court Ontario Court of Appeal
Full case nameThe Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Attorney General of Canada
Decided21 December 2000
Citation(s)
  • 2000 CanLII 16991
  • 51 OR (3d) 641
  • 195 DLR (4th) 135
Case history
Appealed fromChippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 40 RPR (3d) 49 (ONSC)
Subsequent action(s)
  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied (8 November 2001)
  • Application for motion for reconsideration of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed with costs (11 June 2002)
Related action(s)
  • Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General), 2000 CanLII 5620 (27 January 2000)
  • Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General), 2000 CanLII 1956 (4 April 2000)
  • Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General), 2001 CanLII 2615, 204 DLR (4th) 744(5 September 2001)
Court membership
Judges sittingOsborne ACJO
Finlayson, Doherty, Charron and Sharpe JJA
Case opinions
Decision byThe Court

Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG), 2000 CanLII 16991 , 51 OR (3d) 641; 195 DLR (4th) 135 was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning aboriginal title in Canada.

Contents

Background

The Chippewas of Sarnia, a First Nation band, [lower-alpha 1] claimed aboriginal title to a parcel of land comprising 2,540 acres (3.97 sq mi) [lower-alpha 2] on the St. Clair River downstream from Sarnia, Ontario. It had been sold by the band to Malcolm Cameron, a Canadian politician and land speculator, such transaction being ratified through letters patent issued in 1853. [2] In 1995, after discovering in 1979 that there was no documentation pertaining to a formal surrender of the lands to the Crown, [3] [4] the band initiated proceedings for a declaration stating that they had never surrendered their interest in the lands.

First certified as a class proceeding by Adams J in 1996, [lower-alpha 3] Campbell J, a motions judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ordered in April 1999 that: [6]

  1. Canada's motion to dismiss the Chippewas' claim on the basis that the Cameron patent was valid was dismissed.
  2. The landowners' motion in respect of the validity of the 1853 Cameron patent was also dismissed.
  3. The Chippewas' motion in respect of the invalidity of the Cameron patent was allowed. A declaration was issued to the effect that the patent issued to Malcolm Cameron on August 13, 1853 was void ab initio and of no force and effect because there was no lawful surrender. Neither the orders-in-council of March 19, 1840 and June 18, 1840, which approved the sale to Cameron, nor the subsequent letters patent, extinguished the Chippewas' unceded, unsurrendered, common law and aboriginal interests in the lands.
  4. The Chippewas' motion for a declaration that they enjoyed continuing and unextinguished common law, aboriginal, treaty and constitutional rights in the lands was dismissed.
  5. The Chippewas' action for damages against the Crown was permitted to continue.
  6. The motion by the landowners was allowed. The Chippewas' claim against the landowners was dismissed on the basis that the defence of good faith purchaser for value without notice protected the landowners' title and that the application of an equitable limitation period of 60 years worked to extinguish all right, title and interest of the Chippewas in the disputed lands as of August 26, 1921. A declaration was issued to the effect that the present landowners held their title free and clear from any aboriginal title claims.

A series of six appeals and cross-appeals were subsequently filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Judgment on appeal

In a per curiam judgment, the Court allowed the appeals and cross-appeals by Canada, Ontario and the landowners and dismissed the appeal by the Chippewas. [7] Consequently, paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the motions judge's order were set aside, and the following was substituted:

  1. The landowners' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Chippewas' claim in respect of the invalidity of the Cameron patent is allowed.
  2. The Chippewas' motion for summary judgment in respect of the invalidity of the Cameron patent is dismissed.

The Court noted that "In the Canadian legal tradition, no right is absolute, not even constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights", [8] and "In the case of a claim to aboriginal title, a court must approach the issue of delay with extreme caution and with due regard to the nature of the right at issue." [9] Aboriginal title has been held to be sui generis in nature, [lower-alpha 4] and "the Chippewas cannot escape the fact that, from a private law perspective, they are claiming remedies that are discretionary in nature and subject to equitable defences." [11] Proceeding "on the basis that the Chippewas have a right of action against the Crown for damages", [12] the Court summarized the public and private law remedies with respect to the lands in question:

  • In the case of a claim to aboriginal title, a court must approach the issue of delay with extreme caution and with due regard to the nature of the right at issue. [9]
  • Public law remedies available for attacking the validity of the Crown patent are subject to two discretionary factors: (a) the nature of the disputed act, the nature of the illegality committed and its consequences; and (b) the nature of the delay and its consequences for third parties. [13]
  • A claim to aboriginal title is not immune from the overriding principles of equity, particularly where equitable remedies are being claimed. [14]
  • The nemo dat principle does not automatically invalidate Crown patents. Established legal principles require that the interests of innocent third parties must be considered. [15]
  • Because of the equitable doctrine of laches, the 150-year delay in pursuing their claim was fatal to enforcing any judgment against the private landowners. [16]
  • Equity provides protection to a good faith purchaser who acquires a thing for value. [17]

Seeking leave of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

An application for leave to appeal was denied in November 2001. [18] An application for reconsideration, following the publication of two critical law review articles, [lower-alpha 5] was dismissed with costs in June 2002. [20]

Impact and aftermath

Chippewas of Sarnia, together with Delgamuukw, are considered to form the legal framework for determining aboriginal title in those parts of Canada with unceded territory that has never been formally surrendered to the Crown (most prominently in British Columbia). [4] Its approach with respect to dealing with the rights of private landowners involved was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in R v Marshall . [lower-alpha 6]

Observers agreed that this case represented the first application of equity to land claims, but noted that the results were mixed. [21]

Further reading

Notes and references

Notes

  1. ↑ now known as Aamjiwnaang First Nation [1]
  2. ↑ the back quarter of the Upper St. Clair Reserve, one of four reserves withheld from the original surrender of the Huron Tract
  3. ↑ with respect to the private-landowner defendants to the action: Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 8015, 29 OR (3d) 549; 137 DLR (4th) 239(5 July 1996), later varied by Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 8123, 138 DLR (4th) 574(14 August 1996) [5]
  4. ↑ as held in Guerin v The Queen , 1984 CanLII 25 at p. 382, [1984] 2 SCR 335(1 November 1984) and Delgamuukw v British Columbia , 1997 CanLII 302 at pp. 1081-1097, [1997] 3 SCR 1010(11 December 1997) [10]
  5. ↑ McNeil, Kent (2002). "Extinguishment of Aboriginal Title in Canada: Treaties, Legislation, and Judicial Discretion". Ottawa Law Review . 33 (2): 301–346.; Reynolds, James I. (2002). "Aboriginal Title: The Chippewas of Sarnia". Canadian Bar Review . 81 (1): 97–120. [19]
  6. ↑ R v Marshall (No 1) , 1999 CanLII 665, [1999] 3 SCR 456(17 September 1999), R v Marshall (No 2) , 1999 CanLII 666, [1999] 3 SCR 533(17 November 1999) [4]

Related Research Articles

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Calder v British Columbia (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law.

<i>Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., popularly known as the Lego Case, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.

<i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act</i>

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the Act) is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

<i>Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, 1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.

<i>Companies Creditors Arrangement Act</i> Canadian Act of Parliament

The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act is a statute of the Parliament of Canada that allows insolvent corporations owing their creditors in excess of $5 million to restructure their business and financial affairs.

Patent infringement in Canadian law

Once an invention is patented in Canada, exclusive rights are granted to the patent holder as defined by s.42 of the Patent Act. Any interference with the patent holder's "full enjoyment of the monopoly granted by the patent" is considered a patent infringement. Making, constructing, using, or selling a patented invention without the patent holder's permission can constitute infringement. Possession of a patented object, use of a patented object in a process, and inducement or procurement of an infringement may also, in some cases, count as infringement.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

Section 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that:

125. No Lands or Property belonging to Canada or any Province shall be liable to Taxation.

The Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 provides:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:

<i>Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc, 2012 SCC 60 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure requirements for a patent in Canada.

<i>Cinar Corp v Robinson</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Cinar Corp v Robinson is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the field of copyright law, which has impact in many key aspects of it, including:

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation Indian reserve in Ontario, Canada

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation is an Anishinaabe (Ojibway) First Nations band government located 24 kilometres (15 mi) west of St. Thomas, in southwest Ontario, Canada. Their land base is the 3,652.60 hectares Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 42 reserve, which almost entirely surrounds the separate reserve of Munsee-Delaware 1. As of January 2014, their registered population is 2,738 people with 957 living on reserve.

<i>Hryniak v Mauldin</i> Case of the Supreme Court of Canada

Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada that supports recent reforms to Canadian civil procedure in the area of granting summary judgment in civil cases.

<i>Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51, [2012] 2 SCR 675, is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of commercial law, with significant impact in the areas of:

<i>Honda Canada Inc v Keays</i> Canadian Supreme Court employment law case

Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that:

<i>Guindon v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties, for the purposes of s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also provides guidance on when the Court will consider constitutional issues when such had not been argued in the lower courts.

<i>Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc , 2017 SCC 63 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the duty of care that auditors have toward their clients during the course of a professional engagement.

References

  1. ↑ Aamjiwnaang First Nation
  2. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 2
  3. ↑ Perell & Cowan 2002, p. 729.
  4. 1 2 3 Isaac, Thomas F. (1 November 2001). "Private Landowners and Aboriginal Title: Supreme Court of Canada Decision of Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada". McCarthy Tétrault. Archived from the original on 11 March 2007.
  5. ↑ ONSC 1999, par. 1
  6. ↑ ONSC 1999, par. 833; ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 11
  7. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 311
  8. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 263
  9. 1 2 ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 267
  10. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 285
  11. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 283
  12. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 246
  13. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 268-275
  14. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 284-291
  15. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 292-295
  16. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 297-302
  17. ↑ ONCA (Dec 2000), par. 303-309
  18. ↑ "File 28365". Supreme Court of Canada: Bulletin of Proceedings. November 9, 2001. p. 1998.
  19. ↑ Perell & Cowan 2002, p. 727, fn. 1.
  20. ↑ "File 28365". Supreme Court of Canada: Bulletin of Proceedings. June 14, 2002. p. 925.
  21. ↑ Barnsley, Paul (February 2001). "Courts flip-flop to serve third party interests". Windspeaker. Archived from the original on 18 February 2001. Retrieved 20 August 2006.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.