Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS
1
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST
YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO
DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY
BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
Address of
court office: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
393 University Ave., 10th Floor,
Toronto, ON
M5G 1E6
and to:
2
Claim
(a) a declaration that the Crown has failed in its duty to act honourably
(b) a declaration that Canada and Ontario have violated and continue to violate the
equality rights of the Plaintiffs, contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms,
3
ii) by attempting to extinguish the Plaintiffs’ Mississauga identity and culture
by alienating them from their reserve homes, followed by ongoing refusal
to recognize the Plaintiffs as a First Nation community or allow them a
secure land base or provide community services;
iii) by denying their Treaty harvesting rights;
iv) by refusing to consult and negotiate with Kawartha Nishnawbe;
v) by refusing to recognize Kawartha Nishnawbe as a First Nation community
and denying them access to programs and services available to all “status”
band communities;
vi) by blocking the Plaintiffs’ community development opportunities on the
grounds that they are “squatters” with no rights to their lands;
vii) in the case of Canada only, by excluding the Plaintiffs from access to the
Specific Claims Tribunal by means of narrowly defining eligible “First
Nations” in the Specific Claims Tribunal Act to exclude First Nation
communities which have never been “bands” under the Indian Act; and
viii) in the case of Canada, by excluding Kawartha Nishnawbe from the First
Nations Advisory Circle on the Trent-Severn Waterway;
all on the prohibited ground that Kawartha Nishnawbe is not an Indian Act band;
(c) a declaration that the Defendants owe a fiduciary duty to Kawartha Nishnawbe to
protect their Treaty rights with respect to harvesting and their right to live on a
secure land base, and their right to preserve and protect their Mississauga identity
and culture, and that they have failed and continue to fail to discharge that duty;
(d) a declaration that the Defendants have breached the Treaty rights of the Plaintiffs,
contrary to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, by denying their Treaty
harvesting rights and their right to live on a secure land base within their territory
and by attempting to exterminate their Mississauga identity and culture;
4
(d) a declaration that the Defendants have a duty to negotiate with Kawartha
Nishnawbe to address the recognition of their rights and compensation for decades
of denying those rights;
(e) In the alternative, if this Honourable Court finds that any of the rights of the
Plaintiffs were validly extinguished, a declaration that the Crown failed in its duty
to act honourably and failed to adequately compensate the Plaintiffs;
(f) damages for the ongoing infringement of Treaty rights and equality rights and for
failing to consult with the Plaintiffs or compensate the Plaintiffs for the long
standing and ongoing denial of their rights;
(h) an order that this Honourable Court will retain jurisdiction in order to supervise
compliance with its orders;
(i) interim relief, including an order for advance costs in any event of the cause;
(j) their costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis; and
(k) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.
5
Introduction
who were unjustly exiled from their homes on Indian reserves, in a brutal and racist policy
called “enfranchisement” which aimed to exterminate Indigenous culture and identity and
3. The “non-status Indians” established a new Indigenous community in the heart of their
traditional territory at Burleigh Falls, but both Canada and Ontario have consistently treated
them as nothing more than “squatters” with no land rights. For over 40 years, both
governments even refused to provide any elementary school education for the children of the
“Burleigh Falls Indians”, in an effort to impoverish them and drive them off their land.
Mississauga community which has “experienced layer upon layer of exclusion and
discrimination”, yet both governments have ignored those findings and continue to callously
ignore the Plaintiffs, marginalizing them and refusing to recognize them as a community, or
even respect the Treaty rights which the Plaintiffs were promised in 1818, and which were
5. The Plaintiffs state that the facts outlined in this claim, which will be proved at trial, establish
that the Defendants have grossly and intentionally violated their fiduciary duty to protect and
uphold the Plaintiffs’ Treaty rights, intentionally violated the equality rights of the Plaintiffs,
6
The Parties
6. Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation is a Mississauga community and part of the broader
Mississauga Nation. The Mississauga are a sub-group of the Ojibway Nation. The
Mississauga and Ojibway are part of a larger grouping of Aboriginal nations called
“Algonkian”. The Algonkians include the Ojibway, Cree, Chippewa and other First Nations
7. Chief Kris Nahrgang lives in Burleigh Falls and has been Chief of Kawartha Nishnawbe
since 2000. His great-grandfather was Jack Jacobs, the first Chief of Kawartha Nishnawbe.
Chief Nahrgang is also an accomplished sculptor, inventor, archeologist and the co-host of
8. The Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”), is the representative of Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, pursuant to Section 23(1) of the Crown Liability and
9. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (the “Province”), claims
unencumbered Crown Title to Kawartha Nishnawbe territory, pursuant to Section 109 of the
7
Background
10. Since time immemorial, or at least since well before the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the
people of Kawartha Nishnawbe, along with others of the Mississauga Nation, have occupied,
protected, used and governed the area of what is now central Ontario, including the area of
Burleigh Falls, Lovesick Lake, Stoney Lake and Mud Lake. They have always held a deep
spiritual connection to their lands and their identity and culture as a Mississauga community
11. On October 7, 1763, King George III issued a binding Royal Proclamation for the
document marking the beginning of Canada's historic link with Great Britain and British
parliamentary institutions. It was also important in establishing the core elements of the
relationship between First Nation people and the Crown, recognizing First Nation rights in
12. The Proclamation forbids the taking of Indigenous lands and resources without their consent,
"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to Our Interest and the
Security of Our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom
We are connected, and who live under Our Protection, should not be molested or
disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not
having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as
their Hunting Grounds. …”
8
We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of Our Displeasure, all Our loving Subjects
from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any
of the Lands above reserved, without Our especial Leave and Licence for that
Purpose first obtained.”
13. A Government of Canada webpage says: “Since its issuance in 1763, the Royal Proclamation
has served as the basis of the treaty-making process throughout Canada. The protocols and
procedures it established led to the orderly opening of the lands for settlement and the
establishment of an ongoing Treaty Relationship between First Nations and the Crown.”
14. The Proclamation remains legally binding in Canada and its status was formally reaffirmed
15. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Mississauga Nation was in firm control of
most of southern and central Ontario. The area provided a rich source of fish, plants, such as
16. At the end of the War of 1812 southern Ontario was flooded with new settlers from the UK
and the US. The Imperial Crown and the new Province of Canada urgently needed to acquire
land for the settlers, and most land in Ontario was still owned by First Nations. The Crown
was also concerned about the possibility of the Mississauga Nation, which had previously
been allied with the French against the British, forming an alliance with the new American
9
government to protect their lands against the British. For both reasons, a treaty with the
17. In 1818 the Mississauga ancestors of Kawartha Nishnawbe and representatives of the Crown
met near Port Hope and signed Treaty No. 20, also known as the Rice Lake Treaty. The
Treaty covers a huge area of 1,951,000 acres, or almost 7,900 square km.
18. The laws of the Mississauga did not, and still do not, permit the sale, alienation or destruction
of their land, but they could, and did, agree in Treaty 20 to share their land with the Crown
and settlers. In Treaty 20 the Mississauga agreed to allow settlers to live in their territory, but
they retained exclusive title to the islands in the territory for themselves and future
generations of Mississauga, and retained for themselves the right to harvest fish, plants and
19. The english-only written version of Treaty 20 does not mention harvesting rights. However,
in 1981 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that oral history, confirmed by the minutes of the
Treaty negotiations and correspondence from the Treaty Commissioners, proved that the First
Nation signatories had been promised during the Treaty negotiations that the Treaty would
protect their harvesting traditions. The Court found that these promises constitute a part of
the Treaty, even though they were never added to the written text of the Treaty. (R. v. Taylor
10
20. The written text of the Rice Lake Treaty also does not mention “reserves”, but it is clear that
the First Nations signatories were also assured by the Crown that they would continue to
have the right to live in security within their traditional territory. The Mississauga also
21. In 1829 the Mud (Curve) Lake reserve was established for the members of the Mud (Curve)
Lake band, including the ancestors of the Plaintiffs. The settlement eventually became a
formal “reserve” under the Indian Act in 1889. The reserve was a Crown requirement for
22. The Plaintiffs, together with other citizens of the Mississauga Nation, held a communal
interest in the lands they agreed to share with the Crown in 1818, and a communal interest in
the reserves which were established following the Mississauga Treaties with the Crown. This
interest gave rise to a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs and also engages the Honour of the
Crown, which arises in all matters where the Crown takes or permits actions which could
infringe on the Plaintiffs’ right to live on a reserve or exercise their Treaty rights.
23. The Rice Lake Treaty created clear and solemn obligations on the part of the Crown towards
the Plaintiffs as the Crown, through the Treaty, assumed discretionary control over the lands
and resources of the Mississauga people and undertook to protect their rights and interests.
11
24. The Curve Lake Band and Kawartha Nishnawbe did not exist as separate bands in 1818.
Indeed, there was no Indian Act at that time and therefore no Indian Act “bands” or “status
Indians” or “non-status Indians”. Prior to the enactment of the first Indian Act in 1876, only
traditional “bands” existed, all comprised of families with a shared connection to their land.
The distinct Mississauga bands which now exist, whether Indian Act status bands such as
Curve Lake or non-status traditional bands such as Kawartha Nishnawbe, are all descendants
from the “clans and tribes” which entered into Treaty in 1818.
25. Until the early 1900s, most of the families which comprise the Kawartha Nishnawbe band
were part of the Curve Lake band, while the rest were members of one of the three other
Mississauga bands (Alderville, Hiawatha and Scugog) whose ancestors had collectively
26. Like other members of the Curve Lake band, the Plaintiffs’ ancestors lived on Island 31 at
Burleigh Falls during the summer months, between May and November, where they fished,
hunted, worked as fishing guides for tourists, and cut wood for settlers and farmers.
27. Most of the islands in Lovesick and Stoney Lakes belonged to the Curve Lake Band. Island
31, also known as Centre Island, was located at the juncture of these two lakes. The Island
was well located for the Mississauga men who worked as guides during the summer months,
12
28. In the late fall, the residents of Island 31 would return to their reserves at Curve Lake or
Scugog, where they could access essential community services and re-connect with the rest
of their community. The reserve was always an essential home base where the Mississauga
could practise and preserve their culture and enjoy a measure of security of tenure while non-
29. n 1856, a Treaty, known as Surrender #78, was taken from the Mississauga of Rice Lake
(Hiawatha), Mud Lake and Scugog Lake. The islands within their territory were surrendered
for sale, with the important exception of the islands occupied by the Mississauga, which were
reserved for their exclusive use. The Plaintiffs are descendants of the signatories of this
Treaty. Island 31 was one of those islands which were occupied by the Mississauga,
specifically the ancestors of the Plaintiffs, and was reserved by them under the Treaty.
30. Despite the 1856 Treaty, Island 31, which had been reserved by the Department of Indian
Affairs for “an unspecified band”, was purchased by the Department of Railways and Canals
for $200 in 1878. The purchase was authorized by Order-in-Council and was described as an
“expropriation”.
31. Although it was purchased for $200, there is no record that a valuation of the Island had ever
been made, nor evidence that the sale proceeds were ever deposited to the Band’s account.
13
The Indian Department recognized that it was an island “reserved for Indians” but considered
it “disposable.”
32. In 1888, the Mud (Curve) Lake Band petitioned the Department of Indian Affairs to stop
selling islands in the Kawartha Lakes area. They continued to use the area for hunting,
fishing and camping but were being denied access to their islands by non-Natives claiming
control. The Department agreed to reserve some islands for the Mississauga, although they
seemed to believe that all of the islands had somehow been previously surrendered to the
Crown. The Secretary of DIA informed the local Indian Agent that "The Department is,
33. Correspondence pertaining to the reservation of islands indicates the extent to which islands
in the area had been sold, squatted upon, or taken for canal purposes. The Department
acknowledged that “…some of the islands which were patented had been previously reserved
34. Prior to the 1850s, First Nations communities exclusively controlled their own membership
14
35. The concept of enfranchisement was first introduced in 1857 when the province of Canada
passed An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of Indian Tribes in this Province, and to
36. The Act provided incentives for members of bands to renounce their band membership and
37. The voluntary enfranchisement introduced in the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 was based
on the assumption that Indigenous people would be eager to surrender their legal and
ancestral identities for the “privilege” of gaining full Canadian citizenship and assimilating
into Canadian society. Individuals or entire bands could enfranchise. If a man with a family
38. Voluntary enfranchisement was a complete failure as only one Indigenous person in all of
Canada applied to enfranchise between 1857 and 1876. Overwhelmingly, First Nations
rejected, protested and resisted assimilation, proving they were unwilling to abandon their
cultural and legal identities, as anticipated by the colonial authorities. Not a single
15
39. In 1876, Canada passed the first Indian Act, and began imposing involuntary
assimilationist polices aimed at exterminating Indigenous cultures. The Act contained a new
definition of “Indian” which was narrow, sexist and racist, and was aimed at pushing
Indigenous people away from their reserve based communities, which the Defendants viewed
as “primitive”, and compelling them to assimilate into the “superior” white, Christian society.
40. Federal officials acknowledged that the removal of Indigenous people from band
membership and from their reserve homes by re-classifying them as “non-Indian” was
largely intended to reduce the Crown’s financial obligations to First Nations, contrary to the
Crown’s Treaty obligations. The threat of involuntary enfranchisement was also used to
intimidate Indigenous activists who opposed enfranchisement and the theft of Native land.
41. Communities were suddenly and brutally divided as members of reserve-based bands were
classified by powerful federal Indian Agents (the Act gave them the authority of both police
and Justices of the Peace) as either registered “band members” or unregistered “non-status
Indians”. All non-status individuals were removed from band lists and only “status” band
members had the right to live on the reserve, vote in band council elections, and receive
benefits from the federal government, including medical services. “Non-status Indians” were
16
42. Under the involuntary enfranchisement policy, Mississauga and other Indigenous people
could be enfranchised for serving in the Canadian armed forces, gaining a college education,
or for leaving reserves for long periods – for instance, for employment. In addition. any
“status Indian” woman who married a “non-status Indian” man was automatically
enfranchised, along with her children. They could also be enfranchised if their status Indian
43. The explicitly racist policy was aimed at exterminating Indigenous culture while reducing
Crown expenditures by arbitrarily reducing the number of “Indians”. In 1920 the notorious
Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. appeared before a
House of Commons committee and left the members in no doubt about the intention behind
“It has been stated that the franchise provided for under this Bill is a compulsory
franchise, and I have been asked the question whether that is so. I have been asked that
question in the hope, apparently, that I would endeavour to conceal that fact, but it is a
compulsory system, and I hope the committee will support it.”
44. In his statement to the committee, Scott also spoke of the general objectives of Indian policy
as he saw them:
"Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been
absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian
Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.”
Canadian Indian Policy During the Inter-War Years, 1918-1939, by John Leonard Taylor,
published by DIAND, 1984
45. The threat of compulsory enfranchisement was also used to threaten and intimidate any
Indigenous activists who attempted to organize resistance to enfranchisement and the theft of
17
Native lands. Scott wrote to Superintendent General Meighen in 1920: ”It would also check
the intrigues of smart Indians on the reserves, who are forming organizations to foster these
aboriginal feelings, and to thwart the efforts and policy of the Department.” He gave the
example of Fred Loft, a Mohawk WWI veteran. "Such a man should be enfranchised.” Loft
and his League of Indians of Canada opposed enfranchisement, as did all other Indigenous
46. In 1981, the UN ruled that Canada’s enfranchisement policy violated Article 27 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada had signed in 1976,
because the policy resulted in the forced removal of former band members from their
homelands with the intention of erasing their indigenous culture and identity. The decision
was made by the Human Rights Committee of the UN, which had been established by the
47. The 1997 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples said: “Enfranchisement is
a euphemism for one of the most oppressive policies ever adopted by the Canadian
government in its history of dealings with Aboriginal peoples.” The Supreme Court of
Canada has also condemned the enfranchisement provisions of the Indian Act as a brutal,
discriminatory tool used to divide and weaken First Nation communities and alienate the
Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203,
1999 CanLII 687 (SCC)
18
48. In a 2013 decision, the Canadian Human Rights Commission said: “…the enfranchisement
provisions of the Indian Act were based on colonial assumptions that Aboriginal peoples
would, over time, abandon their traditional cultures and ways of life, and be absorbed into
Andrews et al. v. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2013 CHRT 21 (CanLII)
49. The classification of First Nations people as “Indian” or “non-Indian” (aka “non-status”), and
the enfranchisement (removal from band lists and reserves), was arbitrary and had nothing to
do with whether or not a person was “full-blooded” Indian, or whether they lived according
to Indigenous customs. Any Indian woman who married a non-status Indian or non-Native
man was automatically enfranchised and removed from her community, along with her
children. Conversely, white women who married status Indian men became “status Indians”
with full rights and benefits. Countless people were classified as “status Indians” despite
having no Native blood whatsoever, while thousands of people of full Indigenous blood were
50. Both parents of Jack Jacobs, the first Chief of Kawartha Nishnawbe, were Mississauga and
members of the Curve Lake band. His parents were married according to Mississauga
custom before Jack’s birth in 1877 or 1878, but they had not yet been married in a Christian
church, so Jack was labelled “illegitimate” by the all-powerful Indian Agent at Curve Lake.
19
51. The Indian Agent refused to list Jack Jacobs as a band member on the grounds that he was
“illegitimate”. While his parents and siblings and their families remained band members and
remained on the Curve Lake reserve all their lives, Jack and his wife, who was also
Mississauga but lost her status when she married non-status Jack, and their children were
52. Jack Jacobs was soon joined by Buster Brown, Horace Taylor, Elijah Taylor, Isaac Johnson,
Edith Marsden, Abraham Taylor, Josh Johnson, Norah Taylor, John Irons, Rose Irons, Scotty
Hoggarth, and others, along with all of their children. The current members of Kawartha
Nishnawbe are all descendants of these first year-round residents of Burleigh Falls who had
53. Losing the right to live on reserve was a devastating blow against the “Burleigh Falls
Indians”, as the Plaintiffs were then known. For Indigenous people, reserves represent the
last tangible evidence that they are the original people of Canada. Reserves nurture a sense
of history and culture where Indigenous languages, spiritual beliefs, and values are shared.
Although conditions of poverty, poor health, insufficient housing, and insufficient social and
health services still exist on many reserves, the reserve and the traditional values and the
kinship affiliation it nurtures contribute to the members’ sense of identity and sense of self.
20
The New Community of “Burleigh Falls Indians”
54. Despite being fully Indigenous Mississauga, the “non-status Indians” who settled at Burleigh
Falls were often labelled “Half-Breeds” or Metis to demean them and distinguish them from
the “status Indians” who were members of reserve-based Indian Act bands.
55. Determined to preserve their identity as Mississauga people, despite enormous challenges
they now faced after being cruelly removed from their reserve communities, they settled on
Island 31 in the juncture of Stony Lake and Lovesick Lake, in Harvey Township.
56. On Island 31 the “Burleigh Falls Indians” worked hard to clear land and build houses, while
57. Only a few years after being exiled from their reserve homes, the people of Kawartha
Nishnawbe were again forcibly removed from their homes when the Trent Canal dam and
lock at Burleigh Falls were built, apparently between 1912 and 1915. Although they had
cleared the land and built houses on the Island, they were forced to relocate to their present
village site on Lots 4 and 5, Concession 1 of Harvey Township, in order to make room for a
canal construction workers’ camp on the lands that they had cleared. Their new village
58. Much of the land where Kawartha Nishnawbe first settled at Burleigh Falls is now
underwater as a result of the flooding brought by the dams. In addition to raising water
21
levels and submerging much of the land around Burleigh Falls, the Defendants have
permitted, and continue to permit, industry, housing and cottages, and the use of toxic
chemicals in the Lakes, all of which have led to a dramatic deterioration in the ecological
health of the region which the Plaintiffs have relied upon for centuries to sustain themselves
and their distinctive Mississauga culture. The Plaintiffs were never consulted or
59. From the beginning, the new Burleigh Falls / Kawartha Nishnawbe band had its own
leadership (Jack Jacobs was the acknowledged leader of the community) and a distinct
political, social and economic life from the Curve Lake reserve. The members of the new
band were almost all “non-status” First Nations people whose ancestors and close relatives
were members of the Curve Lake band, although some of their spouses came from one of the
60. As they could no longer live on reserves, the people of Kawartha Nishnawbe built their
homes and their own First Nation community on lands which the Defendants regard as
Crown land. The people of Kawartha Nishnawbe continue to exist on these lands despite
61. For most of their history they have been simply called the “Burleigh Falls Indians” by their
non-Indigenous neighbours. However, since the early 1980s, the Burleigh Falls community
22
has consistently used the name “Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation” to reflect their
62. Although the Defendants’ efforts to extinguish the Plaintiffs’ Mississauga culture and identity
have failed, they have caused enormous suffering and damage which is difficult to quantify.
After more than 100 years with no land to call home, Kawartha Nishnawbe’s people struggle
to maintain their traditions, their language and other aspects of their identity, and they
continue to suffer from collective anxiety as a result of having no secure homeland, and
63. In the 1910s, the Crown investigated long standing claims by the Mississauga and Chippewa
Nations that they had never surrendered their title to huge swaths of land throughout much of
southern and central Ontario, and came to the conclusion that those claims were well
64. Ontario and Canada then negotiated the Williams Treaties of 1923 with seven Indian Act
band communities, including the Curve Lake, Scugog, Alderville and Hiawatha Mississauga
communities. One of the Williams Treaties was signed with those four Mississauga
communities while the other identical Williams Treaty was signed with the Chippewa
23
65. In the english-only written text of the Williams Treaties, the seven band signatories
purportedly agreed to surrender all of their rights and title outside of their reserves to the
Crown in exchange for $500,000 in total. The validity of the Treaties was upheld by the
Supreme Court of Canada in 1994, but in the past few years Canada and Ontario have
changed their positions regarding the Williams Treaties and now apparently accept the view
of the seven status bands that the Treaties did not extinguish their harvesting rights under the
66. Jack Jacobs attempted to participate in the 1923 Treaty discussions at Curve Lake to voice
his community’s opposition to the surrender of harvesting rights, but he was excluded
because he and his community were “non-status”. The Burleigh Falls Indians received none
67. Despite the fact that the Plaintiffs’ ancestors did not participate in the Williams Treaties, the
Defendants have consistently taken the position that the Plaintiffs have no Aboriginal or
Treaty rights. They have maintained that the Plaintiffs’ Treaty rights were somehow
implicitly extinguished when they were stripped of status and membership in the status bands
and forced to live off reserve, or alternatively that they were extinguished by the Williams
Treaties, despite the fact that they did not endorse those Treaties or receive any payments
under them.
24
Further Marginalization and Exclusion of the “Burleigh Falls Indians”
68. The Defendants have at all times been aware of the community known as the “Burleigh Falls
Indians”, and have been aware of the damage and suffering caused by their callous actions,
including stripping the Plaintiffs of Indian Act status and band membership and forcing them
69. During the early years of the Burleigh Falls community, the brilliant and hard working Jack
Jacobs managed to buy a large old building which the community converted into a Hotel.
Jacobs used the Somerset Hotel as a base for the men of his community who worked as
fishing guides for the tourists. Jack also employed the Burleigh Falls women as cooks and
maids and employed young men as “chore boys”. This was the only period of relative peace
70. The federal officials who were responsible for the Trent-Severn Waterway at that time made
it clear that they wanted the “squatters” off of “their” land, and expressed strong disapproval
of a hotel being owned and operated by the Burleigh Falls Indians. Non-Indigenous hotel
operators and tourist outfitters in the area also opposed the Native-owned and operated hotel
on the grounds that it allegedly brought “undesirable elements” into the area, but in fact they
simply wanted to exclude and squash a competitor. The non-Natives wanted the Mississauga
people to work as guides and low wage day workers in their businesses, but they did not want
25
71. In the early 1920s, the Somerset Hotel was lost in mysterious circumstances. The Burleigh
Falls community strongly suspected foul play, but police refused to investigate after being
advised by federal officials that “Burleigh Falls Indians” were mere “squatters” who Canada
72. The loss of the Hotel, which had been the community’s pride and joy, and main employer,
was a devastating blow to the community. They were again at the mercy of federal officials
73. Rather than recognizing them as a community with collective rights to their land, the
Defendants began in 1928 to issue the families at Burleigh Falls a patchwork of temporary
leases and licenses of occupation. In a 1932 report to Ottawa, the Indian Agent for Curve
Lake described the “Burleigh Falls Indians” as a very poor, but extremely hard working,
74. During the 1920s and 30s, the Burleigh Falls Indians gradually became aware that even their
traditional harvesting rights, guaranteed by the 1818 Treaty, were no longer recognized by
the Plaintiffs. They faced severe repression as game wardens particularly targeted them.
Evidence at trial will recall how the Burleigh Falls Indians frequently had to flee through the
forests as they were pursued and harassed for attempting to feed their families. Their
26
guiding businesses were also suppressed as the Defendants sought to crush every opportunity
75. Throughout their existence as a distinct Mississauga community, the “Burleigh Falls Indians”
have been neglected and ignored by the provincial government and the local Townships
created by provincial legislation, on the grounds that “Indians” are a federal responsibility,
while the federal government has ignored and neglected them on the grounds that Canada
only accepts responsibility for Indian Act bands and “status Indians”.
76. During the 1930s, the community sank deeper into poverty as the traditional economy of
hunting, fishing, guiding, trapping and logging had collapsed with the suppression of their
Treaty rights, and pressure from local industry. They could no longer support themselves
through traditional harvesting as their Treaty rights were suppressed, on the discriminatory
grounds that they were no longer “Indians”, and they were forced to obey strictly limited
hunting seasons and bag limits. Meanwhile, both governments refused to provide any
The Defendants Refuse to Provide Any Education for the Children of Burleigh Falls
77. Canada and Ontario remained committed to a policy of forced assimilation by refusing to
recognize the “squatters” and even refusing to provide the children of Kawartha Nishnawbe
with elementary school education or medical services. Between 1910 and 1951, more than an
27
Defendants appeared intent on deliberately impoverishing the community in order to drive
78. No local government or school board would accept responsibility for the “Indians”, who they
saw as a federal responsibility, and both Defendants refused to provide even elementary
school education in Burleigh Falls. The community had to rely on volunteers and a
missionary to provide occasional basic education and health services for their members in a
lean-to shack. The majority of this “lost generation” received essentially no education.
79. In 1940, a concerned school trustee from Harvey Township petitioned Queen’s Park for a
meeting to address the dire situation in Burleigh Falls, noting that at least 40 Indigenous
children had no school and no teacher, while the once proudly self-reliant Burleigh Falls
Indian community was sinking deeper and deeper into abject poverty.
80. Sandy Jacobs, Buster Brown and other community leaders eventually travelled to a meeting
in Toronto in 1940, only to be told by the Ministry of Education that they should look to the
churches or Ottawa. Ontario would not provide a school for “Indian” children.
81. Ontario’s position changed in 1946 and an OiC was was passed to fund a primary school for
“the children of Indian families” of Burleigh Falls in 1946. The school had an all-white
appointed board of trustees and opened in 1951. It operated for fourteen years.
28
82. In 1965, the province transferred the Burleigh Falls school to the Harvey Township school
board, and in 1968 the school board closed the school and sold the building. Kawartha
Nishnawbe children are now bussed to public schools in neighbouring towns. No bussing or
other transportation was available to the community between 1915 and 1951.
83. Canada provides full funding for the education of status Indians on reserves, but has never
provided any funding or support whatsoever to the Mississaugas of Burleigh Falls, despite
being aware at all times that the children of this impoverished First Nation community did
84. In 1939, Harvey Township petitioned the federal government to evict the Burleigh Falls
Indians from their homes. On May 31, 1939, the General Superintendent of Canals for the
85. The “squatters” managed to retain a lawyer who appeared in court on their behalf in
Peterborough. Although the “Burleigh Indians” were apparently not allowed to enter the
29
courthouse, their lawyer reported to them that the eviction attempt had been defeated or
86. In the early 1970s, the Trent-Severn Waterway authority again informed the community that
they would be evicted “within a decade” to accommodate a park planned by the Canal. At
the same time, the Canal authorities dramatically increased the annual lease fees for the
residents. Many Kawartha Nishnawbe members refused to pay, despite the threat of eviction.
87. In a 1977 interview conducted by a Trent University student, then Chief Sandy Jacobs
described meeting with a group of MPs in Ottawa the previous year. Chief Jacobs described
the anxiety felt by his whole community as they lived in constant fear of having their homes
88. Jacobs was clearly astonished and disheartened to learn that the MPs knew nothing about
Kawartha Nishnawbe and were unaware of the fact that they had been impoverished and
made landless by the deliberate actions of the Defendants, and apparently were completely
unaware of the fact that thousands of “non-status” Indigenous people had seen their rights
I was to a meeting last year in February in Ottawa talking to four of the Member of
Parliament people.And they started asking me some questions which I answered about
fishing and so on. And they asked me, "Where were you born? What country were
you born in?"…
And I says, "We have no country, the government has taken our country. So at this
time when we were in Ottawa I asked those fellows -- they know everything,they
should -- I asked them what are they going to do with theIndians, if it's true what I
30
hear. That they're going to tear the houses down, and the shacks down, or bulldoze
them off.That it's going to be made into a park, park land on this site. And their prices
has been going up, their rent, their rent for the land, and their taxes and so on has been
going up and up.And it's pretty hard on some of those old people like myself to
manage, to get ends meet, to earn a decent living.
So they... I asked them down there, I says, "All I want to know at this time, while I
have a chance to speak to you," I says, "where are you going to put all the Indians if
you’re going to put them off the land where they were born, where they're living?" I
says, "Where are you going to put them?And that's all I'd like to know is your
ideas."So one fellow says, "That's something new to me. I've never heard such a
thing." So I quit just about there.
But anyway, they... the fishing and hunting, we obey the rules, the white rules, the
white man's rules. We don't fish or hunt whenever we want to.And those days as non-
status Indian. If we should get a chance to get our rights back, we certainly would
have a wonderful time to make ends meet, because we can eat pretty well everything
we wish at any time in the year, I would think. The status Indians, they've had a
wonderful go with the government.They don't pay taxes, they don't, they've got land
that was given to them once upon a time. That is just the statusIndians, and they're
getting along much better than we are.They go and buy a suit, or go and buy a car,
why they don't pay taxes and all that and that saves quite a bit of money. But us
people, us non-status Indians, we're Indians just as much as they are but we certainly
pay taxes, and no place more or less to call our own like the reserve.
89. Due to the uncertainty of land tenure and lack of available land for building, most Kawartha
Nishnawbe members have been forced to live outside of the community. Those who do live
Bill C-31
90. In the wake of the Sandra Lovelace case at the UN, and the adoption of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Indian Act was amended by Bill C-31 in 1985 to
“status” Indians. However, these measures had virtually no impact on the Plaintiffs because
their community was still not recognized as a community or band and they still have no land
31
base for their people to live on. For the Plaintiffs, the critical issue is not whether individual
members are “status” or “non-status”, but rather the recognition of their community and
91. Following Bill C-31, the Plaintiffs imagined and hoped that Canada might want to correct the
injustices which had been inflicted on their community, and they again attempted to engage
the Defendants in negotiations towards establishing a reserve and band status, or any kind of
secure land base for their members. However, after several years of low level discussions
which raised the Plaintiffs’ hopes but never rose to the level of substantive negotiations, both
Defendants walked away from discussions with Kawartha Nishnawbe in 1992, informing
them that they would not negotiate either self-government or land tenure with them. Each
government claimed that the other was primarily responsible for addressing Kawartha
Nishnawbe’s claims while providing absurd, contradictory and racist reasons for once again
92. The Curve Lake band council passed a resolution in 1987 which states that the Curve Lake
reserve cannot accommodate “new” members who regained status under Bill C-31
amendments, and declaring that the Curve Lake band supports the establishment and
32
Kawartha Nishnawbe is Recognized by the Supreme Court, but the Defendants Continue
to Ignore the Plaintiffs and their Rights
93. In 1994, the government of Ontario awarded a casino license to the “First Nations of
Ontario”, to be located on the Rama reserve, but then declared that only status bands would
be included in the profit sharing scheme. Kawartha Nishnawbe joined with four other
rights, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs have
suffered “layer upon layer of exclusion and discrimination” by both Ontario and Canada, but
nevertheless held that their exclusion from a share of the Casino profits was not
discriminatory in this case because the casino was characterized as essentially a business
arrangement between the province and the status bands, not a government program or
94. Despite holding that their exclusion from the casino project did not violate s. 15 of the
Charter, the Court strongly suggested that the exclusion of non-status First Nation
communities from programs and services ordinarily available to status bands will generally
be considered discriminatory.
95. The Court rejected the racist and demeaning description of Kawartha Nishnawbe by Canada
and Ontario as a mere “voluntary association” or “unrecognized group” rather than a First
Nation community. The Court found that Kawartha Nishnawbe is in fact “a First Nation
community with a traditional Mississauga form of government and deep ancestral roots in
33
the Mississauga Nation. Their ancestral, community, political and social structures are
family - or clan-based, where families have been linked together by shared use of lands and
96. The Court noted that Kawartha Nishnawbe is similar to reserve based communities insofar as
they both face high rates of unemployment, poverty, poor housing, and serious disadvantages
in the areas of health and eduction, in addition to facing the same stereotyping and prejudice
as other Aboriginal peoples. However the Court went on to find that, in addition to those
70. Apart from this background, the two appellant groups face a unique set of
disadvantages. Although the two appellant groups emphasize their respective cultural and
historical distinctness as Métis and First Nations peoples, both appellant groups submit
that these particular disadvantages can be traced to their non-participation in, or exclusion
from, the Indian Act. These disadvantages include: (i) a vulnerability to cultural
assimilation, (ii) a compromised ability to protect their relationship with traditional
homelands; (iii) a lack of access to culturally-specific health, educational, and social
service programs, and (iv) a chronic pattern of being ignored by both federal and
provincial governments. These submissions were clearly supported in the findings of the
Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 3, supra, at p. 204:
and at p. 225:
Equity, as we use the term, also means equity among Aboriginal
peoples. The arbitrary regulations and distinctions that have created
unequal health and social service provision depending on a person’s
status as Indian, Métis or Inuit (and among First Nations, depending on
residence on- or off-reserve) must be replaced with rules of access that
34
give an equal chance for physical and social health to all Aboriginal
peoples....
71. Furthermore, the appellants have emphasized that these disadvantages have been
exacerbated by continuing unfair treatment perpetuated by the stereotype that they are
“less aboriginal”, with the result that they are generally treated as being less worthy
of recognition, and viewed as being disorganized and less accountable than other
aboriginal peoples.
97. Despite these findings by the Supreme Court, both Canada and Ontario continue to ignore
Kawartha Nishnawbe, regarding them not as a community, but merely a group of squatters
with no right to live in their homes, and no funding or services of any kind. The Defendants
98. Until 2002, both Canada and Ontario took the position that members of Kawartha Nishnawbe
had no harvesting rights or other Treaty rights, simply by virtue of having been stripped of
Indian Act “status”, despite the fact that the Indian Act never actually addressed Treaties or
Treaty rights. They further argued that, even if the Treaty harvesting rights of Kawartha
Nishnawbe members had survived their loss of Indian Act status, they were extinguished by
the Williams Treaty of 1923, despite the fact that Kawartha Nishnawbe had no part in the
99. In the 2002 case of R. v. Joe Johnson, a member of Kawartha Nishnawbe was charged with
illegally fishing without a provincial license within his community’s traditional territory. He
relied on his harvesting rights under the 1818 Treaty, but Ontario argued that his family’s
35
rights had been extinguished when Canada stripped them of Indian Act status and
100. The Ontario Court of Justice heard expert testimony from both the defence and the Crown
and ultimately rejected both of Ontario’s arguments. The Crown’s expert historical evidence
was found to be riddled with significant errors, and the report’s author acknowledged that he
had never visited Burleigh Falls or met any members of the community. The Court ruled that
the members of Kawartha Nishnawbe retain their harvesting rights under the Rice Lake
Treaty of 1818, and that the rights of Kawartha Nishnawbe members were not extinguished
101. Several months after the Court’s ruling in Johnson, Ontario notified Mr. Johnson that they
intended to appeal the decision, and asked Mr. Johnson to consent to an extension of time for
filing the appeal. Counsel for Mr. Johnson immediately agreed to the Crown’s request, but
the appeal was later abandoned by Ontario without explanation. In fact, no notice of appeal
102. Despite the result in the Johnson case, and the despite the clear admonition by the Supreme
Court of Canada in Lovelace that “non-status” First Nation communities have been wrongly
denied equality with “status” bands, both Canada and Ontario have continued to callously
ignore the Plaintiffs and their rights and refused to negotiate an agreement to clarify the
36
103. Despite the fact that the Court in Johnson clearly upheld the Plaintiffs’ Treaty right to
harvest within their traditional territory, the Defendants have failed to consult with the
Plaintiffs before undertaking or permitting activities which impact on their rights, or failed to
consult adequately. On those occasions where they do offer some consultation, it is almost
always practically impossible for Kawartha Nishnawbe to participate because the Defendants
104. Hunting, fishing, trapping and other traditional harvesting activities are vitally important to
the unique culture and identity of the Mississauga people, including Kawartha Nishnawbe, in
addition to being a vital source of food for a poor, marginalized Indigenous community.
105. In addition to economic losses, the Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of their language and
culture and enormous anguish and humiliation as a result of the Defendants denying their
Treaty rights and even denying their existence as a First Nation community.
106. Ironically, despite being completely self-reliant and receiving no benefits at all from the
Defendants, and even being denied the Treaty rights they were solemnly promised in 1818,
the Plaintiffs have had to endure generations of demeaning and racist stereotypes as “lazy
Indians, always with their hands out for government benefits.” The same false and
37
demeaning stereotypes have been applied to all Indigenous people in Canada, but they are
particularly destructive when the victims are members of landless “non-status” communities
who are also regarded as “less Aboriginal” than the “status” bands and their members.
107. In 1970, Sir Sanford Fleming College commissioned a study on “the aspirations and
experiences of some Southern Ontario Indians in relation to education”. The researcher was
shocked by the conditions of the “Burleigh Falls Indians” and described a community which
was largely shunned by both white society and the “status” First Nations. The researcher
found very low levels of education (most adults had less than grade 4) and extreme poverty
in the community, and noted that they often faced harsh and blatant racism from their non-
Indigenous neighbours, including local businesses, schools and government officials, and
even local churches, who held them up as “bad examples”. (“Red Hopes and White Reality”,
108. The researcher described a community of people who, despite their poverty, were
extremely generous and hard working, and who were humiliated by offers of charity,
including donations of second hand clothes. The people of Kawartha Nishnawbe have
109. The researcher described a community which had struggled for decades to have their
children educated, only to be met by disinterest and outright racism from officials, as well as
from their non-Native neighbours. Many members of the community had lost all hope of
38
their community ever having access to education and employment opportunities and had
“Evaluating the responses of the Burleigh Falls Indians, one might draw the
conclusion that these people live in poverty and isolation frequently anesthetized
by alcohol, as a consequence of their own choice. This researcher is more inclined
to conclude that their non-participation is the only sane attitude to adopt toward a
society which has effectively denied them education, employment and a basis for
self-respect.”
110. On January 9, 1975, Elder Margaret Spencely wrote to both Defendants on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and asked them to meet with the community to hear their history and their humble,
modest plea for fairness and justice. The letter made it clear that the “Burleigh Falls
Indians”, asked for very, very little - they simply wanted a deed to 5 acres of land for their
“In the interests of justice for a group that, through no fault of their own, is at the
mercy of the federal government; in the interest of compassion for families who
desperately want their own little place in the sun; in the interest of fairness to the
past native peoples who did not understand legal documents; in the interest of
Canadian families who want a home in Canada, we urge you to give us a hearing
and to grant this simple request for building lots, to the historical residents of
Burleigh Falls.”
The Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Improve their Lives and Preserve their History are Blocked by
Canada
111. In 2011, the Plaintiffs considered a project to generate electricity from the fast flowing
water in Perry’s Creek, which runs through Burleigh Falls. They partnered with a private
company which builds small hydro generating facilities to develop a proposal for a “run-of-
the-river” turbine which would have minimal environmental impact while generating
electricity which they could both use and sell to supply the grid. The project had the
potential to provide badly needed revenue to Kawartha Nishnawbe and the community
39
worked hard throughout 2011 and 2012 with their partners to develop the proposal and
112. Canada acknowledged that the project appeared to be an excellent use of the water and that
it fit within their plans and priorities for use of the water. However, Parks Canada also
informed Kawartha Nishnawbe that they would not approve the project unless the Curve
Lake band approved of it. Reluctantly, Kawartha Nishnawbe and their partners agreed to
113. In May, 2013, the Plaintiffs learned that the Curve Lake band had endorsed the project and
entered into a partnership to develop it. However, Parks Canada and Curve Lake had decided
that the project would proceed without the Plaintiffs. Canada had assured the Curve Lake
band and their private sector partners that there was no need to even consult with Kawartha
Nishnawbe, let alone include the Plaintiffs as partners in the project. In fact, Canada strongly
preferred to exclude the Plaintiffs, in keeping with their long standing policy of intentionally
impoverishing the “Burleigh Falls Indians” in order to induce them to leave their land.
114. When the Plaintiffs learned that they would be excluded from the project which they had
initiated, and which would be built in the heart of their community, they informed Parks
Canada that they regard this incident as yet another example of Canada discriminating
against them on the grounds that they are not an Indian Act band. The Plaintiffs also
informed the project proponents that any attempt to build this project in Burleigh Falls
40
without their involvement would be met by non-violent resistance from Kawartha Nishawbe.
115. In an effort to preserve his people’s history, Chief Kris Nahrgang became a self-taught
underwater (scuba) archaeologist in the 1990s. He has recovered numerous artifacts from the
lakes around Burleigh Falls where the Plaintiffs’ ancestors lived and worked before the area
was flooded, including pottery, arrowheads, fishing equipment and human remains.
116. However, because they have no reserve and no recognition as a community, the Plaintiffs
have faced huge challenges to keep their historic artifacts within their community, as both
Defendants have complex laws governing archeology and the handling of artifacts. Bands
with reserves have fully funded cultural centres and museums to legally house and display
117. When one of his early finds was reported by local news media, the ancient ceramics were
seized by Parks Canada, which manages the Trent-Severn Waterway, on .the grounds that all
artifacts found in the water are the property of Canada. Parks Canada also insisted that such
41
Further Examples of Discrimination by Canada Against Kawartha Nishnawbe
118. In addition to being denied a reserve and the benefits associated with having a secure land
base, Kawartha Nishnawbe members are denied the benefits of numerous programs and
services which Canada provides only to “status” bands with reserves, including:
a) First Nation communities which are recognized as Indian Act bands all receive
core funding from Canada under a program called Band Support Funding. The BSF
program provides basic support to allow bands to maintain a band office and small staff.
This in turn allows bands to more efficiently manage programs and services for their
members. BSF also supports the political representation function of band councils.
Kawartha Nishnawbe has never received BSF or any other core funding. The community
struggles to act as a community government, with an all-volunteer Chief and Council. It is
virtually impossible for Kawartha Nishnawbe to engage in consultations with industry and
other governments regarding projects which impact on their lands and resources.
b) The status bands all receive funding from Canada for the construction and
renovation of homes for band members through the First Nation On-Reserve Housing
Program, without having to apply. Kawartha Nishnawbe is excluded because they have
no reserve and are labeled “non-status”. Kawartha Nishnawbe’s housing needs are
extremely dire, with most of their members being forced to find housing in Peterborough
or other towns because they have no homes and no land for them in Burleigh Falls.
d) Status bands all receive funding from Canada under the Capital Facilities and
Maintenance (CFM) program which Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Canada (AANDC) describes as “the main pillar of the Government of Canada's effort to
support community infrastructure for First Nations on reserve. The program funding,
which totals over $1 billion per year, is invested in four main areas: housing, education,
water and wastewater systems, and other infrastructure (roads and bridges, fire protection,
electrification, community facilities, etc..). The main objectives of the CFM program are
to make investments that:
42
need start-up funds to undertake pre-development activities. They may need a partner or
business leader who understands the involved industry. Or, they may need in-house
expertise and management skills. The Community Opportunity Readiness Program
addresses the financial needs of Aboriginal communities when they are in pursuit of, and
wish to participate in, an economic opportunity. The program is a consolidation of the
former community economic opportunities program, the major projects investment fund,
and the community-based components of the Aboriginal business development program.
By helping communities become equipped to participate in an economic opportunity,
AANDC can increase the participation of Aboriginal people in Canada's economy overall
and improve the prosperity of Aboriginal communities and individuals.”Kawartha
Nishnawbe’s members suffer from high rates of unemployment and have a dire need for
economic development in their community, but they are excluded because they are not a
“status” band.
g) Bands are also eligible to apply for funding through the Professional and
Institutional Development Program which “funds projects that develop the capacity of
First Nations and Inuit communities to perform core functions of government such as
planning and risk management, leadership, basic administration and financial
management.” Needless to say, the all-volunteer band council of Kawartha Nishnawbe is
not eligible to apply because they are a “non-status” community.
h) Bands also have access to the Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program
(CFMP). “Contributions to eligible recipients under the Capital Facilities and
Maintenance Program (CFMP) provide financial assistance to plan, construct and/or
acquire and operate and maintain community capital facilities and services (infrastructure,
including schools) and housing (residential) consistent with approved policies and
standards. This assistance is provided to First Nations on reserves, as well as First Nations
and other eligible recipients on Crown land or recognized Indian land.” Kawartha
Nishnawbe is not eligible because they are “non-status”.
i) Bands also receive support from Canada through the Employee Benefits
program which “provides funding to eligible First Nation and Inuit employers to support
the employer's share of contributions to eligible employees' pension plans. These may
include the costs of employer sponsored pension plans, the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan
(CPP/QPP) and any additional employee benefits.” This program also “supports eligible
First Nation and Inuit employers in attracting and keeping the qualified staff needed to
manage and deliver programs and services taken over from the federal government. The
program enables eligible employers to establish competitive employee benefit packages
comparable to other employers (such as federal, provincial and municipal governments,
school boards, etc.). This also supports Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)’s
goal of transferring control of program management and program delivery to band
43
communities.”Kawartha Nishnawbe could benefit enormously from the Employee
Benefits program, but they are arbitrarily excluded because they are “non-status”.
k) The income and property of Status Indians living on reserve is exempt from
taxation or seizure under s. 87 of the Indian Act. The Supreme Court has said that the
purpose of this provision is intended to protect the interests of Indigenous people in their
reserve based land and personal property. The Plaintiffs must pay all the same taxes as
their non-Indigenous neighbours.
The Specific Claims Tribunal Act Arbitrarily Bars the Plaintiffs From Submitting a Claim
119. In 2008 Canada established the Specific Claims Tribunal in order to “provide justice for
First Nations claimants and certainty for government, industry and all Canadians.” The
Tribunal can hear and adjudicate claims which might otherwise be barred by limitation
periods, and can award up to $150 million per claim. Status bands can submit their land
claims to the Tribunal, which functions as a court of record, but non-status First Nation
communities like Kawartha Nishnawbe are arbitrarily prohibited from filing claims by the
44
(c) a group of persons that was a band within the meaning of paragraph (a), that is
no longer a band by virtue of an Act or agreement mentioned in the schedule and
that has not released its right to bring a specific claim.
120. Canada also provides funding for status bands to research, negotiate and litigate land
communities. The predecessor of the Specific Claims Tribunal, the Indian Specific Claims
Commission, also refused to consider claims by First Nation communities which are not
Indian Act bands. No reason has ever been provided for excluding the Plaintiffs, apart from
Canada simply arbitrarily stating that the federal government is only concerned with “status
121. In recent years, under the Specific Claims process, the status Mississauga bands have been
awarded compensation for the damage caused by rising water levels which resulted from the
construction and operation of the Trent-Severn Waterway. Despite the fact that they were
impacted more than any other community, the Plaintiffs are arbitrarily excluded from the
Specific Claims Tribunal and have no opportunity for redress, except through this
Honourable Court.
The Defendants’ New Position on the Williams Treaties and the New Agreement with the
Williams Treaties Bands
122. The Defendants have recently signed a new agreement with the “status” Williams Treaties
bands which restores the harvesting rights which they had, according to the Defendants,
surrendered in 1923. This means that those bands again have the right to harvest wildlife
45
and fish within the areas covered by those Treaties, including Kawartha Nishnawbe’s
territory.
123. The Defendants not only excluded Kawartha Nishnawbe from their negotiations, they
flagrantly ignored the well established law that holders of Treaty rights must be consulted
regarding initiatives that could impact those rights, by failing to even consult with
Kawartha Nishnawbe. According to a joint news release, the terms of the negotiated
settlement include:
-An entitlement for each of the “status” First Nation to add up to 11,000 acres of
land to their reserve land base subject to Canada’s Additions to Reserve/Reserve
Creation policy;
-Recognition of the (status) First Nations’ continuing treaty harvesting rights and a
commitment to continue to work together to implement these rights; and
124. In September, 2018, the Plaintiffs again wrote to both Defendants asking them to negotiate
with Kawartha Nishnawbe to establish a secure land base for their members. In a separate
communication, the Plaintiffs also asked the Defendants whether they would negotiate an
46
agreement with Kawartha Nishnawbe similar to the agreement they have recently
concluded with the “status” Williams Treaties bands. As of the date of issuing this claim,
neither government had responded, other than with one sentence emails stating that they
had received the Plaintiffs’ requests and would give them “every consideration”.
125. The Plaintiffs state that their Treaty rights and equality rights have been systematically and
deliberately violated for over 100 years, and that this discrimination continues daily as both
Defendants continue to refuse to recognize them as a First Nation community. In the words
of the Supreme Court in Lovelace, the Plaintiffs continue to suffer “…layer upon layer of
126. The Plaintiffs state that this Honourable Court should be guided by the United Nations
conduct of the Defendants as outlined in this claim constitutes violations of the Treaty
rights and equality rights of the Plaintiffs, and whether the conduct of the Defendants has
127. The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the Declaration on September 13,
2007 after more than twenty years of deliberation and debate. The Declaration is the most
47
peoples’ economic, social, cultural, political, civil, spiritual and environmental rights. In its
own words, the Declaration sets out minimum standards necessary for the “dignity,
128. The Declaration calls on states to honour and respect the Treaties and other agreements
they have entered into with Indigenous peoples, to protect Indigenous languages and
cultures, and to uphold Indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources.
129. Both Defendants have very publicly proclaimed that they are committed to implementing
the UNDRIP within their respective jurisdictions, and both governments have used this
professed commitment as a means to curry favour with voters, Indigenous peoples, and
130. Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has recently passed three
readings in the House of Commons and is in the Senate as of the date of issuing this claim.
“Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that the principles set out
in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
should be enshrined in the laws of Canada,”
131. The Act would commit Canada to working with First Nations organizations bring Canada’s
48
132. Given the facts of this case, the Defendants’ pious claims that they respect and abide by the
UNDRIP ring hollow, and may be seen as monumentally hypocritical from the point of
view of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants’ conduct towards the Plaintiffs has been, and
remains, wholly contrary to virtually all of the principles which they have pledged to
133. By enfranchising the people of Kawartha Nishnawbe and separating them from their lands
and their home communities with the intention of exterminating their Mississauga culture
and identity, and then refusing to recognize them as a distinct First Nation community with
harvesting rights and a right to land and self-determination, and denying them access to
basic education and health services, and programs and services for “status” First Nations,
including the Specific Claims Tribunal, and by refusing to negotiate any kind of self-
government agreement or harvesting rights agreement with them, the Defendants have
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self- determination, have the right to
autonomy or self- government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as
ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced
assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct
peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
49
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or
resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or
undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination
directed against them.
Article 9
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or
nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned.
No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.
Article 10
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No
relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous
peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible,
with the option of return.
Article 11
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and
customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and
future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites,
artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and
literature.
2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include
restitution,developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their
cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and
informed con
Article 14
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and
institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their
cultural methods of teaching and learning.
Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would
affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their
own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making
institutions.
Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned
through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed
consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may
affect them.
Article 20
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and
social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of
subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other
economic activities.
2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled
to just and fair redress.
50
Article 23
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for
exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be
actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and
social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes
through their own institutions.
Article 25
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual
relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories,
waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future
generations in this regard.
Article 26
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have
traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories
and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional
occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources.
Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land
tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Article 27
States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a
fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to
indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and
adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources,
including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous
peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.
Article 28
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or,
when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories
and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and
which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior
and informed consent.
2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take
the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of
monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.
Article 29
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment
and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall
establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such
conservation and protection, without discrimination.
Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for
the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned
through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed
consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other
51
resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of
mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities,
and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic,
social, cultural or spiritual impact.
Article 33
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in
accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of
indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the
membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.
Article 37
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of
treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their
successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other
constructive arrangements.
Article 39
Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from
States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this
Declaration.
Article 40
Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair
procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as
to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a
decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the
indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights.
The Plaintiffs Plead for Reconciliation - Legal Issues and Relief Sought
1. As the curtain opens wider and wider on the history of Canada’s relationship
with its Indigenous peoples, inequities are increasingly revealed and remedies
urgently sought. Many revelations have resulted in good faith policy and legislative
responses, but the list of disadvantages remains robust. This case represents another
chapter in the pursuit of reconciliation and redress in that relationship.
37. The constitutional changes, the apologies for historic wrongs, a growing
appreciation that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people are partners in
Confederation, the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and the
Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, all indicate
that reconciliation with all of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples is Parliament’s goal.
52
135. In this case, reconciliation between the Plaintiffs and the Crown will be challenging, after
a century in which both Defendants have cruelly refused to recognize the “Burleigh Falls
allow them to live in security without fear of eviction, and even refused to educate their
136. However, despite their history, or perhaps because if it, the Plaintiffs are as resilient, kind,
generous and forgiving as their ancestors, and they remain committed to honouring their
Treaties with the Crown and seeking a just and fair relationship with Canada and Ontario.
They seek reconciliation through the just resolution of their claims herein.
137. Reconciliation and justice for Kawartha Nishnawbe, and the restoration of the honour of
138. The Supreme Court has held that limitation periods can bar certain “personal” remedies
in Aboriginal rights cases, but they cannot prevent the Courts from issuing declarations
53
that Treaties and fiduciary obligations have been violated, that equality rights or other
constitutional rights or obligations have been violated, or that the conduct of governments
have failed to uphold the honour of the Crown. Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v.
[140] What is at issue is a constitutional grievance going back almost a century and
a half. So long as the issue remains outstanding, the goal of reconciliation and
constitutional harmony, recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and
underlying s. 31 of the Manitoba Act, remains unachieved. The ongoing rift in the
national fabric that s. 31 was adopted to cure remains unremedied. The unfinished
business of reconciliation of the Métis people with Canadian sovereignty is a matter of
national and constitutional import. The courts are the guardians of the Constitution
and, as in Ravndahl and Kingstreet, cannot be barred by mere statutes from issuing a
declaration on a fundamental constitutional matter. The principles of legality,
constitutionality and the rule of law demand no less: see Reference re Secession of
Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, at para. 72.
The various rationales for limitations are still clearly relevant, but it is the
writer’s view that the goal of reconciliation is a far more important
consideration and ought to be given more weight in the analysis. Arguments that
provincial limitations apply of their own force, or can be incorporated as valid
federal law, miss the point when aboriginal and treaty rights are at issue. They
ignore the real analysis that ought to be undertaken, which is one of
reconciliation and justification.
[142] Schachter was writing in the context of Aboriginal rights, but the argument
applies with equal force here. Leonard I. Rotman goes even farther, pointing out that
to allow the Crown to shield its unconstitutional actions with the effects of its own
legislation appears fundamentally unjust: “Wewaykum: A New Spin on the Crown’s
Fiduciary Obligations to Aboriginal Peoples?” (2004), U.B.C. L. Rev. 219, at pp.
241-42. The point is that despite the legitimate policy rationales in favour of statutory
limitations periods, in the Aboriginal context, there are unique rationales that must
sometimes prevail.
54
140. In this case, although the Plaintiffs say that only an order giving them title to their own
collective land base in Burleigh Falls and access to programs and services for First
Nations will begin to achieve reconciliation with the Crown, they mainly seek mere
declarations that the Defendants have violated their rights, and failed to uphold the
honour of the Crown, by marginalizing them, denying them land security and denying
them access to programs and services. This sort of declaratory relief is specifically
endorsed by the Supreme Court in cases where claims by Indigenous people for more
specific and tangible remedies, such as an order for the return of stolen land, may be
141. As suggested by the Supreme Court in Manitoba Metis, the Plaintiffs hope that the
declaratory relief ordered by this Honourable Court will be useful leverage in convincing
the Defendants to finally negotiate an agreement with them which will truly achieve
reconciliation and justice and restore the honour of the Crown. This must be the goal of
142. Section 35 recognizes and affirms “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the
between the Crown and First Nations by recognizing and respecting the land rights and
55
143. The Plaintiffs hold Treaty rights flowing from the Rice Lake Treaty of 1818, aka Treaty
#20. Those rights include harvesting rights, the right to live on a reserve or similar secure
land base, and the right to be consulted whenever governments contemplate actions
144. All of the Plaintiffs’ Treaty rights have been intentionally breached since their ancestors
were deprived of their birthright by removing them from band lists and forcing them off
their home reserves. These violations continue today as both Defendants continue to
deny the Plaintiffs a secure land base, deny their harvesting rights and their right to
preserve their Mississauga culture, and fail or refuse to consult with them regarding
145. The Crown assumed a fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiffs when it entered into
Treaty with them in 1818, and again in 1856. Through those Treaties, the Crown
assumed discretionary control over the lands which the Mississauga had collectively
owned, and thereby assumed a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the Mississauga
146. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendant governments owe a fiduciary duty to uphold and
protect their Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including the right to a secure land base and the
56
right to preserve their culture and identity, and that the Defendants have grossly violated
that duty by flagrantly and intentionally marginalizing and impoverishing the Plaintiffs
and denying the existence of their rights and denying their existence as a community.
147. The Plaintiffs say that the Defendants owe the Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty to uphold and
protect their harvesting rights under the 1818 Rice Lake Treaty and that they have
flagrantly and intentionally breached that duty by refusing to recognize their rights and by
excluding Kawartha Nishnawbe from the recent negotiations regarding the Williams
Treaties and by excluding Kawartha Nishnawbe from the provisions and benefits of their
agreement with the status bands, and by refusing to negotiate a similar agreement with
Kawartha Nishnawbe.
The Defendants have Violated, and Continue to Violate, the Equality Rights of the
Plaintiffs, Contrary to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
148. The Plaintiffs state that Canada and Ontario have violated and continue to violate their
equality rights, contrary to section 15 of the Charter, by denying them Indian Act band
status and systematically treating the fact that their community is “non-status” as
effectively meaning that the Plaintiffs have no Treaty or Aboriginal rights and no existence
as a community, and, in the case of Canada, denying them access to the Specific Claims
Tribunal and denying access to programs and services for Indian Act bands.
57
149. Virtually all of Canada’s 634 Indian Act bands have reserves or similar secure land bases.
Between them, they hold 3,100 reserves for the exclusive use of their members. The few
status bands without reserves have either chosen not to take reserves because they believe
that they retain full title to their entire traditional territories (NWT) or they are in a process
with Canada in which Canada recognizes their right to a reserve and is working towards
150. Only a handful of First Nation communities are regarded by Canada as not having a right to
a reserve or similar secure land base, and all of them are “non-status” communities like
Kawartha Nishnawbe. The Plaintiffs state that, even if they do not have a Treaty right to a
reserve or similar land base, the refusal by both Defendants to establish a land base for
Kawartha Nishnawbe is manifestly discriminatory and denies them one of the most
151. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants have violated their equality rights, contrary to
section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by denying their community a
reserve or similar secure land base, on the prohibited grounds that Kawartha Nishnawbe is
152. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants have violated their equality rights, contrary to
Nishnawbe from their negotiations on the Williams Treaties and from the benefits and
58
compensation which they have agreed to give to the seven Williams Treaty bands, on the
prohibited grounds that Kawartha Nishnawbe is a “non-status” First Nation community and
153. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that, in all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples,
from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of
treaties, the Crown must act honourably. The honour of the Crown always seeks “the
reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown”.
[66] The honour of the Crown arises “from the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty over an
Aboriginal people and de facto control of land and resources that were formerly in the
control of that people”: Haida Nation, at para. 32. In Aboriginal law, the honour of the
Crown goes back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which made reference to “the
several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under
our Protection”: see Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 S.C.R.
103, at para. 42. This “Protection”, though, did not arise from a paternalistic desire to
protect the Aboriginal peoples; rather, it was a recognition of their strength. Nor is the
honour of the Crown a paternalistic concept. The comments of Brian Slattery with
respect to fiduciary duty resonate here:
The sources of the general fiduciary duty do not lie, then, in a paternalistic
concern to protect a “weaker” or “primitive” people, as has sometimes been
suggested, but rather in the necessity of persuading native peoples, at a time
when they still had considerable military capacities, that their rights would be
better protected by reliance on the Crown than by self-help.
[67] The honour of the Crown thus recognizes the impact of the “superimposition of
European laws and customs” on pre-existing Aboriginal societies: R. v. Van der Peet,
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 507, at para. 248, per McLachlin J., dissenting. Aboriginal peoples were
here first, and they were never conquered (Haida Nation, at para. 25); yet, they became
subject to a legal system that they did not share. Historical treaties were framed in that
unfamiliar legal system, and negotiated and drafted in a foreign language: R. v. Badger,
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 771, at para. 52; Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85, at
pp. 142-43, per La Forest J. The honour of the Crown characterizes the “special
59
relationship” that arises out of this colonial practice: Little Salmon, at para. 62. As
explained by Brian Slattery:
(“Aboriginal Rights and the Honour of the Crown” (2005), 29 S.C.L.R. (2d) 433,
at p. 436)
[73] The honour of the Crown “is not a mere incantation, but rather a core precept that
finds its application in concrete practices” and “gives rise to different duties in different
circumstances”: Haida Nation, at paras. 16 and 18. It is not a cause of action itself;
rather, it speaks to how obligations that attract it must be fulfilled. Thus far, the honour of
the Crown has been applied in at least four situations:
(1) The honour of the Crown gives rise to a fiduciary duty when the Crown
assumes discretionary control over a specific Aboriginal interest (Wewaykum, at
paras. 79 and 81; Haida Nation, at para. 18);
(4) The honour of the Crown requires the Crown to act in a way that
accomplishes the intended purposes of treaty and statutory grants to Aboriginal
peoples (R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456, at para. 43, referring to The Case
of The Churchwardens of St. Saviour in Southwark (1613), 10 Co. Rep. 66b, 77
E.R. 1025, and Roger Earl of Rutland’s Case (1608), 8 Co. Rep. 55a, 77 E.R.
555; Mikisew Cree First Nation, at para. 51; Badger, at para. 47).
[74] Thus, the duty that flows from the honour of the Crown varies with the situation in
which it is engaged. What constitutes honourable conduct will vary with the
circumstances.
155. As set out in their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs state that the conduct of the Defendants in
relation to Kawartha Nishnawbe has failed to uphold the Honour of the Crown, by denying
rather than protecting their rights under the Rice Lake Treaty to harvest fish and wildlife
60
and the right to live on a reserve, and by excluding them from programs and services for
“bands”, and even from basic services ostensibly available to all Canadians, and by
refusing to negotiate agreements with the Plaintiffs similar to those agreements the
Defendants have concluded with the “status” Williams Treaty bands, and denying them
156. The honour of the Crown has been badly tarnished by the conduct of the Defendants over
the past 100 years in relation to the Plaintiffs. It is the duty of this Honourable Court to
restore the honour of the Crown by granting the relief sought by the Plaintiffs.
157. In recent years, Canadian courts have awarded damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter for
breach of Charter rights. Vancouver (City) v. Ward, [2010] 2 SCR 28; Canada (Prime
Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] 1 SCR 44; Henry v. BC, 2016 BCSC 1038; Elmardy v Toronto
158. Damages in this case should reflect the nature of the rights violated, the number of people
affected, the fact that these breaches have continued even after an Ontario court clearly called
for respect for the Plaintiffs’ Treaty rights (Johnson) and after the Supreme Court held that
the Plaintiffs had suffered “layer upon layer of exclusion and discrimination” (Lovelace). It
is apparent that the Defendants will continue to suppress and deny the fundamental rights of
61
the Plaintiffs unless this Honourable Court awards appropriate damages. Experience has
159. The Plaintiffs state that this is one of the exceptional cases where the violation of
Constitutional rights has not only been intentional, but so egregious, so long lasting, so
destructive, and affecting such fundamental rights, that exemplary damages are also
warranted and necessary in order to reflect societal revulsion, compensate the Plaintiffs, and
- Treaty 78 of 1856;
- Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and
161. The Plaintiffs propose that the trial of this action be held in Peterborough, Ontario.
62
December 12, 2018 Christopher M. Reid,
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
154 Monarch Park Ave.
Toronto, ON M4J 4R6
Tel: 416-909-4531
Fax: 416-466-1852
lawreid@aol.com
LSUC #27827R
63