Ontario Court of Appeal upholds entitlement of Missanabie Cree First Nation to reserve lands

The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed the entitlement of the Missanabie Cree First Nation (MCFN) to reserve lands under Treaty No. 9 as of the treaty's original signing date in 1906.

This decision, stemming from a long-standing legal battle, centred on determining the appropriate "crystallization date" to calculate the Indigenous community's population for reserve land allocation. The MCFN has taken a long course of action to right a “historical wrong.” This has included commencing a court action and years of negotiation.

The population of the MCFN has increased since 1906. The threshold question before the court was: At what point in time should the population of the MCFN be determined for the purposes of calculating the size of the reserve under Treaty No. 9? Should the calculation be based on the size of the Missanabie Cree population as of the date that the appellants entered into the treaty or as it has become?

The court considered historical evidence and interpretations of Treaty No. 9, noting that the population figure relevant for calculating the reserve size should reflect the numbers from 1906, aligning with the treaty's inception. The court acknowledged that this approach upholds the original intent of the treaty parties and underscores a commitment to honor the agreements made over a century ago.

The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's analysis, affirming its alignment with principles prioritizing the treaty process's integrity and the Crown's commitments. This scrutiny confirmed the absence of errors in interpreting the treaty, consequently dismissing the appeal lodged by the MCFN.

Furthermore, the court addressed ancillary matters, including the treatment of a settlement agreement reached post-trial between Canada and the MCFN. Despite the agreement's introduction as fresh evidence, the court rejected Canada's plea to continue sealing the document. The court emphasized the judiciary's dedication to transparency and the public's right to access court information.

Moreover, Canada's motion to dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process was denied. The court clarified that such considerations should be addressed in the subsequent phase of litigation, focusing on damages and remedies. This phase is anticipated to delve deeper into the implications of the settlement agreement, especially concerning Ontario's outstanding crossclaim against Canada.