In a move that has dismayed the Robinson Huron Treaty signatory nations, the provincial government announced that it would be filing for an appeal of the recent decision in the case of Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General) & Ontario (Attorney General), otherwise known as Stage One and Stage Two of the Robinson Huron Treaty annuities case.
Ogimaa Duke Peltier of Wiikwemkoong Unceded First Nation told Sudbury.com he was disheartened when he heard the news, but said he knew immediately that it was another in a line of delay tactics. Delaying, he said, until a specific date passes.
“In my personal opinion, it has to do with an event coming up in June,” he said, referring to the 2022 provincial election. “I think they are looking to delay until after that event.”
In September of 2014, the Robinson Huron Treaty First Nations brought a court action against the federal and provincial governments, with the claim that the Crown breached a promise to augment the annuity payable under the Treaty.
The Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of the Anishinaabe in 2018. The federal government accepted that decision, but Ontario appealed and stage one and two of that appeal took place in May and June of 2021, respectively.
In November of 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected most of Ontario’s appeals and, like the Ontario Superior Court, urged the Crown to settle.
The mood at a November press conference announcing the decision was positive, with Chief Dean Sayers of Batchewana First Nation described as an “incredible, incredible moment in the history of our lands here in Canada, on Turtle Island,” but that mood has changed now.
The provincial appeal is an argument used throughout the proceedings: that the court is not the place to decide or implement the complex issues of treaty negotiations.
“The Court of Appeal majority’s interpretation puts courts, rather than the parties to the Robinson Treaties, at the centre of treaty implementation and will leave little room for the normal government function,” read the provincial documents.
The government function in this case would be “assessing the multitude of factors relevant to appropriate resource-sharing and what constitutes a balance between the ‘relative wealth and needs of the different communities’.
The province states that “this transfer of authority from a government process to a treaty process has sweeping implications.”
But Peltier disagrees. In a release from the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund called “Ontario Favours Confrontation Over Reconciliation In Supreme Court Of Canada Appeal,” Peltier states that the provincial government is being “biased and divisive,” by attempting to “pit the interests of non-First Nation Ontarians against the interest of First Nations.”
He also questions the government’s continued use of the court system. “You cannot complain that the courts are overstepping their role when you don’t like the result,” stated Peltier. “Especially when the government is relying on litigation to avoid negotiating, then complain that the court threatens the role of the government to negotiate mutually desired results.”
In a joint statement, Peltier and Sayers suggest that the provincial government believes that confrontation is the best response.
“Perhaps the current government thinks that in the face of an upcoming election that it's better to be resisting versus embracing reconciliation,” reads the statement “It fails to acknowledge and factor into their analysis that our treaty neighbors, like the municipalities of Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Parry Sound, Blind River and Espanola are supporting our call for settlement. These treaty neighbors understand they are treaty people as well, are acting honourably and in accordance with reconciliation.”
Mike Restoule, chair of the Robinson-Huron Treaty Litigation Fund, closed the November press conference by saying that while it is against the Anishinaabek’s nature to work in the court system, they would not back down.
“We know that there were trillions and trillions of dollars earned by settlers in our territory, and yet, our communities are among the poorest; it is not right, and that's why we brought this case to the courts,” said Restoule. “We have won every step of our process to this point, and if it's litigation that Ontario wants, we are prepared to go there. But we are a peace-loving people. We prefer to sit down and talk about our relationship; the relationship that is so important in this land, for us to live together in peace and harmony.”
