Restoule v Canada

Last updated

Restoule v Canada is a legal case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that considers whether the Augmentation clause in the 1850 Robinson Treaties entitles the Anishinaabe to an increase in annuity payments. [1]

Contents

Justice Patricia Hennessy presided over the case, which featured the Anishinaabe First Nation as plaintiffs and the Attorneys General of Ontario and of Canada as defendants. [2] The case concerns the two Robinson treaties, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior treaty, focusing specifically on whether the Augmentation Clause within the treaties proscribes a cap on the annuities payable to the First Nation. [3]

The Anishinaabe argued there should be an increase to the annuity, while the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario argued that there should be a cap on the annuity. [4]

On December 21, 2018, Justice Patricia Hennessy declared that the Crown had a duty to increase the annuities in the Robinson treaties. [5] She determined that the Robinson treaties provide for an increase in the collective annuities and only caps the payment to individuals at $4. [6]

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice next to Toronto City Hall in Toronto, Ontario Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Toronto City Hall, Toronto, Ontario.jpg
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice next to Toronto City Hall in Toronto, Ontario

The case has been viewed as a step towards reconciliation. [7]

Background

In 1850, 24 first nations entered into two treaties with Mr. William Robinson. Robinson was appointed by the Crown to negotiate a surrender of First Nations' territorial land on the north shore of Lake Superior and the north shore of Lake Huron. Two historic treaties signed in 1850, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior treaty, form the basis for the decision.

The Robinson Treaties provided an immediate payment of £4,000 to the “Chiefs and their Tribes” in compensation for the surrendered territory of the Anishinaabe and then annuity payments of £600 for the Huron Anishinaabe and £500 for the Superior Anishinaabe. Based on the population at the time, this was $1.70 and $1.60 per capita, respectively. Each Treaty also included a unique Augmentation Clause, differing only in amount of payment.

that for and in consideration of the sum of two thousand pounds of good and lawful money of Upper Canada to them in hand; and for the further perpetual annuity of five hundred pounds, the same to be paid and delivered to the said Chiefs and their Tribes.... The said William Benjamin Robinson, on behalf of Her Majesty, who desires to deal liberally and justly with all Her subjects, further promises and agrees that in case the territory hereby ceded by the parties of the second part shall at any future period produce an amount which will enable the Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them, then and in that case the same shall be augmented from time to time, provided that the amount paid to each individual shall not exceed the sum of one pound Provincial currency in any one year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order (the “Augmentation Clause”) [8]

Arguments

Restoule v. Canada centered around interpreting two treaties, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior Treaty, both from 1850. [9] The case was brought to the Ontario Superior Court by the Huron and Superior Anishinaabe. The Huron and Superior Anishinaabe argument stated that the signatory first nations of the treaty are entitled to an increased annuity as the terms of the treaty state that the tribes are entitled to a share of revenues from the surrendered territories adjusted for an increase in revenues on that surrendered territory. [10] The Anishinaabe argued that the Crown has a responsibility to increase annuity payments, as outlined in the Robinson Treaties that the Crown must act in good faith and is required to consult with the tribes in the future regarding the annuity payments. [11] The plaintiffs pointed to the Skene letter to support their arguments, the letter stated that the Anishinaabe are entitled to an increase in annuities above the original $4.00 to $10.00 per person as the revenues for the Crown increased off of the surrendered land. [12]

When the Robinson treaties signed in 1850, the clauses outlined annuities of $4.00 but did not outline a process for increasing the annuities. The Crown's argument deliberated on the amount of annuities owed to the Anishinaabe by the crown as outlined in the Robinson treaties. [13] The Crown's argument stated a cap on annuities. The reasoning was the Anishinaabe leadership failed to articulate their claim that the crown promised to increase annuities from $4.00. The argument stated that the Anishinaabe did not have a sufficient legal understanding to make a claim for an increase.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice claims that the Anishinaabe at the time of the treaty understood there to be a cap of $4.00 per person. The Ontario Superior Court also argues that the Skene letter and subsequent documentation does not support the Anishinaabe's claim that the Crown is obligated to raise the annuity payments. [14]

Decision

Justice Hennessy found the common intention of the parties on the augmentation clause in the Robinson treaties was that the Crown would increase collective annuities with increases in territorial revenues. [15] The reference to £1 or $4 was only to cap payments to individuals. [16]

The Robinson treaties included an augmentation clause to satisfy the Anishinaabe's expectations and reduce the Crown's financial and administrative burden. [17] The Colborne Policy limited cash payment to individuals, so Robinson likely set a low amount to comply with Chiefs’ pressure. [18]

The Crown's honour requires the Crown to accomplish the Treaties’ intended purposes. [19] The Crown must reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of Indigenous peoples with the Crown's assumed sovereignty [20] The Crown has an ad hoc fiduciary duty as “the Crown undertook to act exclusively in the best interest of the Treaties’ beneficiaries in their promise to engage in a process to determine if the economic circumstances warrant an increase to the annuities.” [21] Both parties took risks, the Anishinaabe, if insufficient revenues to increase the annuities and the crown if required to make substantial increases. [22] The promise is mandatory, but the Crown has discretion, subject to the duty of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure. [23] There is also a duty to consult. [24]

A fair share of resources was to be determined at a later stage. [25] The treaties included a means to deal with changing circumstances. [26] Justice Hennessy dismissed the claim to imply an indexation term to protect against the erosion of annuities. [27]

Aftermath

The decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on December 21, 2018, to increase annual treaty payment above $4 per person without incurring loss, in accordance with revenue generated on Anishinaabe land, was viewed as a step forward towards reconciliation through a modern interpretation of treaty rights. The Restoule v Canada case serves to emphasize the aspect of the Marshall case where courts needed to develop a modern interpretation of treaties constructed by the Crown and First Nations prior judicial reasoning sufficient to satisfy both parties. Though the consensus was widely accepted, [28] it did fall into criticism by some journalists saying that the interpretation of the treaty was already just and did not need a modern interpretation. [29]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Upper Canada</span> Former British colony in North America

The Province of Upper Canada was a part of British Canada established in 1791 by the Kingdom of Great Britain, to govern the central third of the lands in British North America, formerly part of the Province of Quebec since 1763. Upper Canada included all of modern-day Southern Ontario and all those areas of Northern Ontario in the Pays d'en Haut which had formed part of New France, essentially the watersheds of the Ottawa River or Lakes Huron and Superior, excluding any lands within the watershed of Hudson Bay. The "upper" prefix in the name reflects its geographic position along the Great Lakes, mostly above the headwaters of the Saint Lawrence River, contrasted with Lower Canada to the northeast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ojibwe</span> Group of indigenous peoples in North America

The Ojibwe, Ojibwa, Chippewa, or Saulteaux are an Anishinaabe people in what is currently southern Canada, the northern Midwestern United States, and Northern Plains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bruce County</span> County in Ontario, Canada

Bruce County is a county in Southwestern Ontario, Canada comprising eight lower-tier municipalities and with a 2016 population of 66,491. It is named for James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin and 12th Earl of Kincardine, sixth Governor General of the Province of Canada. The Bruce name is also linked to the Bruce Trail and the Bruce Peninsula. It has three distinct areas. The Peninsula is part of the Niagara Escarpment and is known for its views, rock formations, cliffs, and hiking trails. The Lakeshore includes nearly 100 km of fresh water and soft sandy beaches. Finally, the Interior Region has a strong history in farming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wiikwemkoong First Nation</span> Unceded territory in Ontario, Canada

The Wiikwemkoong First Nation is a First Nation on Manitoulin Island in Northern Ontario. The Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory is the First Nation reserve in the northeast of Manitoulin Island in Manitoulin District, Ontario, Canada. Wiikwemkoong is an unceded Indigenous reserve in Canada, which means that it has not "relinquished title to its land to the government by treaty or otherwise."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Garden River First Nation</span> Indian reserve in Ontario, Canada

Garden River First Nation, also known as Ketegaunseebee, is an Ojibwa band located at Garden River 14 near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

The Robinson Treaties are two treaties signed between the Ojibwa chiefs and The Crown in 1850 in the Province of Canada. The first treaty involved Ojibwa chiefs along the north shore of Lake Superior, and is known as the Robinson Superior Treaty. The second treaty, signed two days later, included Ojibwa chiefs from along the eastern and northern shores of Lake Huron, and is known as the Robinson Huron Treaty. The Wiikwemkoong First Nation did not sign either treaty, and their land is considered "unceded".

<i>Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada</i> (AG)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chippewas of Rama First Nation</span>

Chippewas of Rama First Nation, also known as Chippewas of Mnjikaning and Chippewas of Rama Mnjikaning First Nation, is an Anishinaabe (Ojibway) First Nation located in the province of Ontario in Canada. The name Mnjikaning, or fully vocalized as Minjikaning, refers to the fishing weirs at Atherley Narrows between Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching and it means "in/on/at or near the fence".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teme-Augama Anishnabai</span>

The Teme-Augama Anishnabai is the Indiginous Anishinaabe community of the Temagami First Nation. The Teme-Augama Anishnabai have trapped and hunted animals in the Temagami region of Canada for over 5,000 years. Bear Island on Lake Temagami is home to the Aboriginal community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fort William First Nation</span> Indian reserve in Ontario, Canada

Fort William First Nation is an Ojibwa First Nation reserve in Ontario, Canada. The administrative headquarters for this band government is south of Thunder Bay. As of January 2008, the First Nation had a registered population of 1,798 people, of which their on-Reserve population was 832 people.

The Temagami First Nation is located on Bear Island in the heart of Lake Temagami. The island is the second largest in Lake Temagami, after Temagami Island. Its community is known as Bear Island 1. Temagami First Nation (TFN) members are status Indians under the Indian Act that live on and off Bear Island.

Gary Potts was a chief of the Temagami First Nation and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai in Temagami, Ontario, Canada. He was chief in August 1973 when the Temagami Land Caution began with land claims being filed with title offices to prevent development on Crown land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gull Bay First Nation</span> Indian reserve in Ontario, Canada

Gull Bay First Nation or Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek is an Anishinaabe (Ojibway) First Nation band government located in Thunder Bay District in northwestern Ontario, Canada. It is approximately 175 kilometres (109 mi) north of Thunder Bay, Ontario on Highway 527 on the western shore of Lake Nipigon. As of May 2010, the First Nation had a registered population of 1,149 people, including an on-Reserve population of 328.

R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43, commonly called the Powley ruling, is a Supreme Court of Canada case defining Métis Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal Aid Ontario</span> Canadian provincial legal aid organization

Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) is a publicly funded and publicly accountable non-profit corporation, responsible for administering the legal aid program in the province of Ontario, Canada. Through a toll-free number and multiple in-person locations such as courthouse offices, duty counsel and community legal clinics, the organization provides more than one million assists to low-income Ontario residents each year.

<i>That Portion of the Cayuga Indians Residing in Canada v. State</i>

That Portion of the Cayuga Indians Residing in Canada v. State, 1 N.E. 770, was an early litigation of aboriginal title in New York, with the Canadian Cayugas seeking to recovery compensation from a prior land cession.

The Temagami Land Caution was a territorial dispute in the Temagami area of Northeastern Ontario, Canada. The land claim was filed with land title offices in August 1973 by Gary Potts, then Chief of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai an Aboriginal community. The caution was intended as a way of maintaining 10,000 km2 (3,900 sq mi) of land that they claimed as "n'Daki Menan", meaning "Our Land". Existing throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, it effectively prevented all types of development on Crown land, such as mining. Crown land sales were also prohibited due to the Temagami Land Caution. In 1988, Vince Kerrio approved the expansion of Red Squirrel Road directly through the Temagami Land Caution. This prompted a series of roadblocks by the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and by environmentalists in 1988-1989. In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Teme-Augama Anishnabai gave up rights to the land via the 1850 Robinson Treaty despite the Tema-Augama Anishnabai claiming that they never signed or consented to the treaty. The Temagami Land Caution was lifted in 1995 as a result of a court order by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Batchewana First Nation of Ojibways is an Ojibway First Nation in northern Ontario. Their traditional lands run along the eastern shore of Lake Superior, from Batchawana Bay to Whitefish Island. They were reserved this land in the 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty, but surrendered most of it under the 1859 Pennefather Treaty. Through purchase and land claims, it has reclaimed some territories, including Goulais Bay 15A, Obadjiwan 15E, Rankin Location 15D and Whitefish Island.

Shawanaga First Nation is an Anishinaabe First Nation band government in central Ontario near Nobel. Its reserves include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ignace Tonené</span> Teme-Augama Anishnabai community chief

Ignace Tonené, also known as Nias and Maiagizis, was a Hudson's Bay Company employee, a fur trader, a gold prospector, and the chief of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai community.

References

  1. ↑ "Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701". www.dgwlaw.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  2. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
  3. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
  4. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
  5. ↑ "Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701". www.dgwlaw.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  6. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
  7. ↑ "Historical lawsuit affirms Indigenous laws on par with Canada's". National Post. Retrieved 2020-11-05.
  8. ↑ "Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 | JFK Law | Canada". JFK Law. 2019-02-15. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  9. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 114
  10. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 114
  11. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
  12. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
  13. ↑ "Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701". www.dgwlaw.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  14. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
  15. ↑ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701, at 463; 596.
  16. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 463; 397.
  17. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 457.
  18. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 454.
  19. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 477.
  20. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 491.
  21. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 519.
  22. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 522.
  23. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 429-31.
  24. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 571.
  25. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 561.
  26. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 592.
  27. ↑ Restoule v Canada, at 598.
  28. ↑ "Historical lawsuit affirms Indigenous laws on par with Canada's". National Post. Retrieved 2020-11-05.
  29. ↑ "The Real Cost of Bad History". C2C Journal. 2019-05-29. Retrieved 2020-11-05.
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.