Litigation

Court case description

The Six Nations of the Grand River’s position is set out in its Statement of Claim. A summary of the position is as follows:

The Six Nations of the Grand River Band is suing the governments of Canada and Ontario in a court case that started in 1995. The Band says that under the 1784 Haldimand Proclamation, which it considers a treaty, the British Crown set aside about 950,000 acres of lands along the Grand River in Ontario which the Six Nations of the Grand River and their descendants were to enjoy forever. The Band says that after 1784, the British Crown, and later the governments of Canada and Ontario, failed to set aside these lands, improperly sold most of them to settlers, and mismanaged the proceeds of sales from them. The Band is asking the court to make findings to this effect, and seeking compensation from the governments of Canada and Ontario for these historical wrongs.

Canada’s position is set out in its Statement of Defence and Statement of Defence to the Ontario Crossclaim. Ontario’s position is set out in its Statement of Defence and Crossclaim and Statement of Defence to the Canada Crossclaim. A summary of the Crowns’ position is as follows:

The 1784 Haldimand Proclamation is not a treaty and did not set aside or create an obligation to establish a reserve. The tract of land described in the 1784 Haldimand Proclamation and 1793 Simcoe Patent, which was made available to the Six Nations people who wished to settle there, came from lands covered by a treaty made with the Mississaugas in 1784. Over decades, the Six Nations people made a series of valid surrenders and sales of lands within the tract. Some lands were also affected by canals and other infrastructure projects. While historical facts and positions will continue to be researched and reviewed during the litigation process, Canada and Ontario both disagree with the Band that they have been at fault in their dealings with the Six Nations that are raised in this action and raise various defences.

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation is an intervenor in the case. MCFN’s position is set out in its Statement of Defence, a summary of MCFN’s position is as follows:

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (“MCFN”) supports Six Nations of the Grand River in its effort to hold the Crown accountable for its mismanagement and abuses relating to the lands allocated to Six Nations of the Grand River under the Haldimand Proclamation and related assets.

As an intervenor, MCFN participates in this action on a targeted basis as a steward of its history, its rights, and its traditional territory, all of which this litigation engages. MCFN seeks to ensure these topics are accurately, holistically, and respectfully portrayed and in MCFN’s own words. MCFN does not seek compensation for itself and does not intervene to prevent the Crown from fulfilling its obligations to Six Nations of the Grand River.

Six Nations of the Grand River Band’s response to the defendants and intervenor is set out in its Reply. A summary of this reply is as follows:

The Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 represented the culmination of a process of treaty making. The Crown always understood that the Haldimand Proclamation gives rise to treaty rights, and that the Haldimand Tract was to be a reserve. Canada’s and Ontario’s positions that they were not at fault in their dealings with the Six Nations of the Grand River is incorrect.

The agreement referred to by the MCFN as the Between the Lakes is a surrender that was negotiated for the purposes of making the Haldimand Proclamation. The Haldimand Proclamation is a treaty and its boundaries are set out in the 1784 surrender, the 1792 surrender, Treaty and Surrender No. 18 of 1818, and Treaty and Surrender No. 19 of 1818.

You can read the current court materials for this case here.

If you do not have Internet access, you may ask for copies by contacting one of the lawyers below: