Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG) | |
---|---|
Court | Ontario Court of Appeal |
Full case name | The Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Attorney General of Canada |
Decided | 21 December 2000 |
Citation(s) |
|
Case history | |
Appealed from | Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 40 RPR (3d) 49 (ONSC) |
Subsequent action(s) |
|
Related action(s) |
|
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Osborne ACJO Finlayson, Doherty, Charron and Sharpe JJA |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | The Court |
Indigenous peoples in Canada |
---|
Indigenous North Americas Canada portal |
Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (AG), 2000 CanLII 16991, 51 OR (3d) 641; 195 DLR (4th) 135 was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning aboriginal title in Canada.
The Chippewas of Sarnia, a First Nation band,[a] claimed aboriginal title to a parcel of land comprising 2,540 acres (3.97 sq mi)[b] on the St. Clair River downstream from Sarnia, Ontario. It had been sold by the band to Malcolm Cameron, a Canadian politician and land speculator, such transaction being ratified through letters patent issued in 1853.[2] In 1995, after discovering in 1979 that there was no documentation pertaining to a formal surrender of the lands to the Crown,[3][4] the band initiated proceedings for a declaration stating that they had never surrendered their interest in the lands.
First certified as a class proceeding by Adams J in 1996,[c] Campbell J, a motions judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ordered in April 1999 that:[6]
A series of six appeals and cross-appeals were subsequently filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In a per curiam judgment, the Court allowed the appeals and cross-appeals by Canada, Ontario and the landowners and dismissed the appeal by the Chippewas.[7] Consequently, paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the motions judge's order were set aside, and the following was substituted:
The Court noted that "In the Canadian legal tradition, no right is absolute, not even constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights",[8] and "In the case of a claim to aboriginal title, a court must approach the issue of delay with extreme caution and with due regard to the nature of the right at issue."[9] Aboriginal title has been held to be sui generis in nature,[d] and "the Chippewas cannot escape the fact that, from a private law perspective, they are claiming remedies that are discretionary in nature and subject to equitable defences."[11] Proceeding "on the basis that the Chippewas have a right of action against the Crown for damages",[12] the Court summarized the public and private law remedies with respect to the lands in question:
An application for leave to appeal was denied in November 2001.[18] An application for reconsideration, following the publication of two critical law review articles,[e] was dismissed with costs in June 2002.[20]
Chippewas of Sarnia, together with Delgamuukw, are considered to form the legal framework for determining aboriginal title in those parts of Canada with unceded territory that has never been formally surrendered to the Crown (most prominently in British Columbia).[4] Its approach with respect to dealing with the rights of private landowners involved was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in R v Marshall.[f]
Observers agreed that this case represented the first application of equity to land claims, but noted that the results were mixed.[21]