The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has issued a significant ruling in the case Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule, affirming that the Crown has an obligation to compensate First Nations groups for breaches of treaty obligations. This decision centers on treaties signed in 1850 between the Anishinaabe of Lake Huron and Lake Superior and the Crown, relevant during the era when these regions fell under the British colony of Canada West, preceding Canadian confederation in 1867.
Under the terms of these treaties, the Indigenous groups agreed to cede their lands in exchange for perpetual payments from the Crown. These payments were set to increase proportionally with the productivity of the ceded lands, but the financial compensation remained capped at approximately $4 per year per member. The Crown had the discretion to raise these payments, a power that has not been exercised since 1875.
The SCC concluded that under its fiduciary duty, the Crown must periodically review and consider increasing these payments. This fiduciary duty was first elaborated in Canadian jurisprudence in Guerin v. The Queen, which described the relationship as ‘sui generis,’ arising from the Crown’s discretionary authority over Indigenous lands. According to the Court, the Crown must administer ceded lands in a manner that reflects the ‘honour of the Crown,’ meaning it must act honourably and in good faith in its dealings.
The Court criticized the Crown’s failure to adjust payments since 1875 as an ‘egregious’ breach of its fiduciary obligations. As a remedy, the SCC ruled that the Crown must negotiate compensation with the affected Anishinaabe groups. The Crown has successfully settled with a Lake Huron group and is in ongoing negotiations with the Lake Superior group. Should these negotiations fail within six months, the government is mandated to provide compensation.
This ruling reinforces that the Canadian Government cannot unilaterally decide how to fulfill Treaty promises, maintaining that it must do so in an honourable and fair manner consistent with its fiduciary duties.
For further details, you can read the full article on JURIST.