103:
first nations of the treaty are entitled to an increased annuity as the terms of the treaty state that the tribes are entitled to a share of revenues from the surrendered territories adjusted for an increase in revenues on that surrendered territory. The
Anishinaabe argued that the Crown has a responsibility to increase annuity payments, as outlined in the Robinson Treaties that the Crown must act in good faith and is required to consult with the tribes in the future regarding the annuity payments. The plaintiffs pointed to the Skene letter to support their arguments, the letter stated that the Anishinaabe are entitled to an increase in annuities above the original $ 4.00 to $ 10.00 per person as the revenues for the Crown increased off of the surrendered land.
64:
93:
agrees that in case the territory hereby ceded by the parties of the second part shall at any future period produce an amount which will enable the
Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them, then and in that case the same shall be augmented from time to time, provided that the amount paid to each individual shall not exceed the sum of one pound Provincial currency in any one year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order (the “Augmentation Clause”)
115:
The
Ontario Superior Court of Justice claims that the Anishinaabe at the time of the treaty understood there to be a cap of $ 4.00 per person. The Ontario Superior Court also argues that the Skene letter and subsequent documentation does not support the Anishinaabe's claim that the Crown is obligated
83:
The
Robinson Treaties provided an immediate payment of £4,000 to the “Chiefs and their Tribes” in compensation for the surrendered territory of the Anishinaabe and then annuity payments of £600 for the Huron Anishinaabe and £500 for the Superior Anishinaabe. Based on the population at the time, this
149:
The decision by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on December 21, 2018, to increase annual treaty payment above $ 4 per person without incurring loss, in accordance with revenue generated on Anishinaabe land, was viewed as a step forward towards reconciliation through a modern interpretation of
106:
When the
Robinson treaties signed in 1850, the clauses outlined annuities of $ 4.00 but did not outline a process for increasing the annuities. The Crown's argument deliberated on the amount of annuities owed to the Anishinaabe by the crown as outlined in the Robinson treaties. The Crown's argument
92:
to them in hand; and for the further perpetual annuity of five hundred pounds, the same to be paid and delivered to the said Chiefs and their Tribes.... The said
William Benjamin Robinson, on behalf of Her Majesty, who desires to deal liberally and justly with all Her subjects, further promises and
136:
requires the Crown to accomplish the
Treaties’ intended purposes. The Crown must reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of Indigenous peoples with the Crown's assumed sovereignty The Crown has an ad hoc fiduciary duty as “the Crown undertook to act exclusively in the best interest of the Treaties’
102:
Restoule v. Canada centered around interpreting two treaties, the
Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior Treaty, both from 1850. The case was brought to the Ontario Superior Court by the Huron and Superior Anishinaabe. The Huron and Superior Anishinaabe argument stated that the signatory
79:
In 1850, 24 first nations entered into two treaties with Mr. William
Robinson. Robinson was appointed by the Crown to negotiate a surrender of First Nations' territorial land on the north shore of Lake Superior and the north shore of Lake Huron. Two historic treaties signed in 1850, the Robinson
154:
where courts needed to develop a modern interpretation of treaties constructed by the Crown and First Nations. Though the consensus was widely accepted, it did come under criticism from some journalists who argued that the interpretation of the treaty was already just and did not need a modern
128:
The Robinson treaties included an augmentation clause to satisfy the Anishinaabe's expectations and reduce the Crown's financial and administrative burden. The Colborne Policy limited cash payment to individuals, so Robinson likely set a low amount to comply with the Chiefs’ pressure.
137:
beneficiaries in their promise to engage in a process to determine if the economic circumstances warrant an increase to the annuities.” The promise is mandatory, but the Crown has discretion, subject to the duty of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure. There is also a duty to consult.
59:
On December 21, 2018, Justice Patricia Hennessy declared that the Crown had a duty to increase the annuities in the Robinson treaties. She determined that the Robinson treaties provide for an increase in the collective annuities and only caps the payment to individuals at $
124:
Justice Hennessy found the common intention of the parties on the augmentation clause in the Robinson treaties was that the Crown would increase collective annuities with increases in territorial revenues. The reference to ÂŁ1 or $ 4 was only to cap payments to individuals.
53:. The case concerns the two Robinson treaties, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior treaty, focusing specifically on whether the Augmentation Clause within the treaties proscribes a cap on the annuities payable to the First Nation.
140:
A fair share of resources was to be determined at a later stage. The treaties included a means to deal with changing circumstances. Justice Hennessy dismissed the claim to imply an indexation term to protect against the erosion of annuities.
637:
111:
leadership failed to articulate their claim that the crown promised to increase annuities from $ 4.00. The argument stated that the Anishinaabe did not have a sufficient legal understanding to make a claim for an increase.
569:
975:
1143:
617:
926:
562:
1031:
1226:
56:
The Anishinaabe argued there should be an increase to the annuity, while the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario argued that there should be a cap on the annuity.
1272:
555:
63:
996:
919:
1136:
622:
1122:
870:
968:
882:
1257:
84:
was $ 1.70 and $ 1.60 per capita, respectively. Each Treaty also included a unique Augmentation Clause, differing only in amount of payment.
1169:
738:
503:
241:
1252:
1247:
27:
627:
914:
902:
607:
961:
989:
876:
687:
1262:
732:
1174:
786:
326:
888:
612:
1267:
1010:
706:
693:
591:
Note: "Aboriginal law" refers to Canadian law dealing with Indigenous peoples; "Indigenous law" refers to the
1161:
756:
675:
582:
578:
38:
744:
659:
908:
265:
947:
133:
1212:
1184:
793:
762:
527:
31:
1129:
982:
864:
726:
699:
88:
that for and in consideration of the sum of two thousand pounds of good and lawful money of
46:
1038:
895:
547:
1024:
669:
1241:
1188:
1101:
1072:
1059:
1045:
681:
632:
592:
1195:
1080:
1052:
1017:
151:
89:
67:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice next to Toronto City Hall in Toronto, Ontario
1178:
37:
Justice Patricia Hennessy presided over the case, which featured the Anishinaabe
1207:
1108:
150:
treaty rights. The Restoule v Canada case serves to emphasize the aspect of the
108:
80:
Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior treaty, form the basis for the decision.
1115:
1087:
1066:
1003:
954:
857:
849:
844:
750:
50:
42:
266:"Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701 | JFK Law | Canada"
839:
834:
829:
824:
819:
814:
809:
804:
799:
1094:
216:"Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701".
170:"Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701".
327:"Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701"
1200:
639:
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act
504:"Historical lawsuit affirms Indigenous laws on par with Canada's"
242:"Historical lawsuit affirms Indigenous laws on par with Canada's"
551:
34:
entitles the Anishinaabe to an increase in annuity payments.
71:
The case has been viewed as a step towards reconciliation.
30:
that considers whether the Augmentation clause in the 1850
618:
Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
230:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
206:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
184:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
359:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
349:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
316:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
307:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
195:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
298:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 114
289:
Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 114
1160:
939:
776:
717:
657:
648:
600:
1227:Index of articles related to Indigenous Canadians
107:stated a cap on annuities. The reasoning was the
927:Ongoing treaty negotiations in British Columbia
563:
8:
628:Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867
714:
654:
570:
556:
548:
623:Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
62:
1123:St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R
871:James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
163:
1273:Canadian federal government litigation
997:Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada
1137:Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia
7:
948:Attorney General of Canada v Lavell
14:
969:Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada
28:Ontario Superior Court of Justice
595:of individual Indigenous groups.
903:Duty to consult and accommodate
739:Lake Simcoe–Lake Huron Purchase
608:Aboriginal land title in Canada
116:to raise the annuity payments.
528:"The Real Cost of Bad History"
1:
990:Delgamuukw v British Columbia
877:Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
688:Peace and Friendship Treaties
1258:Canadian Aboriginal case law
733:Penetanguishene Bay Purchase
49:of Ontario and of Canada as
787:Gradual Enfranchisement Act
1289:
613:Royal Proclamation of 1763
1253:2018 in Canadian case law
1222:
1011:R v Marshall; R v Bernard
962:Calder v British Columbia
589:
1248:Treaties of Upper Canada
1162:Indigenous customary law
707:Gradual Civilization Act
694:Treaties of Fort Niagara
1032:Paul v British Columbia
889:Nisga'a Final Agreement
757:Saugeen Tract Agreement
676:Great Peace of Montreal
220:. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
174:. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
26:is a legal case in the
16:Canadian legal judgment
651:governmental relations
95:
68:
86:
66:
745:Huron Tract Purchase
1263:Anishinaabe peoples
579:Canadian Aboriginal
1185:Great Law of Peace
909:Jordan's Principle
777:Post-Confederation
765:(1850, 1854, 1859)
491:Restoule v Canada,
479:Restoule v Canada,
467:Restoule v Canada,
455:Restoule v Canada,
443:Restoule v Canada,
431:Restoule v Canada,
419:Restoule v Canada,
407:Restoule v Canada,
395:Restoule v Canada,
383:Restoule v Canada,
371:Restoule v Canada,
69:
1235:
1234:
1151:Restoule v Canada
976:Corbiere v Canada
935:
934:
794:Numbered Treaties
772:
771:
763:Robinson Treaties
47:Attorneys General
32:Robinson Treaties
23:Restoule v Canada
1280:
1268:Ontario case law
1144:Daniels v Canada
1130:R v Van der Peet
983:Daniels v Canada
727:Toronto Purchase
715:
700:Douglas Treaties
655:
572:
565:
558:
549:
543:
542:
540:
539:
524:
518:
517:
515:
514:
500:
494:
488:
482:
476:
470:
464:
458:
452:
446:
440:
434:
428:
422:
416:
410:
404:
398:
392:
386:
380:
374:
368:
362:
356:
350:
347:
341:
340:
338:
337:
323:
317:
314:
308:
305:
299:
296:
290:
287:
281:
280:
278:
277:
262:
256:
255:
253:
252:
238:
232:
227:
221:
214:
208:
203:
197:
192:
186:
181:
175:
168:
155:interpretation.
1288:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1218:
1170:Self-government
1156:
1039:Paulette Caveat
931:
920:specific claims
911:(proposed 2005)
896:Paix des Braves
778:
768:
719:
713:
662:
650:
644:
596:
585:
576:
546:
537:
535:
526:
525:
521:
512:
510:
502:
501:
497:
489:
485:
477:
473:
465:
461:
453:
449:
441:
437:
429:
425:
417:
413:
405:
401:
393:
389:
381:
377:
369:
365:
357:
353:
348:
344:
335:
333:
325:
324:
320:
315:
311:
306:
302:
297:
293:
288:
284:
275:
273:
264:
263:
259:
250:
248:
240:
239:
235:
228:
224:
215:
211:
204:
200:
193:
189:
182:
178:
169:
165:
161:
147:
122:
100:
77:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1286:
1284:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1240:
1239:
1233:
1232:
1230:
1229:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1217:
1216:
1204:
1192:
1182:
1172:
1166:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1154:
1147:
1140:
1133:
1126:
1119:
1112:
1105:
1098:
1091:
1084:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1063:
1056:
1049:
1042:
1035:
1028:
1025:Mitchell v MNR
1021:
1014:
1007:
1000:
993:
986:
979:
972:
965:
958:
951:
943:
941:
937:
936:
933:
932:
930:
929:
924:
923:
922:
912:
906:
900:
892:
886:
880:
874:
868:
862:
861:(1876–present)
854:
853:
852:
847:
842:
837:
832:
827:
822:
817:
812:
807:
802:
791:
782:
780:
774:
773:
770:
769:
767:
766:
760:
754:
748:
742:
736:
730:
723:
721:
712:
711:
703:
697:
691:
685:
679:
673:
670:Covenant Chain
666:
664:
652:
646:
645:
643:
642:
635:
630:
625:
620:
615:
610:
604:
602:
601:Sources of law
598:
597:
590:
587:
586:
583:Indigenous law
577:
575:
574:
567:
560:
552:
545:
544:
519:
495:
483:
471:
459:
447:
435:
423:
411:
399:
387:
375:
363:
361:, at 463; 596.
351:
342:
318:
309:
300:
291:
282:
257:
233:
222:
209:
198:
187:
176:
162:
160:
157:
146:
143:
134:Crown's honour
121:
118:
99:
96:
76:
73:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1285:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1243:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1189:Haudenosaunee
1186:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1175:Grand Council
1173:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:R v Pamajewon
1099:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1073:Gladue report
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:R v Gladstone
1057:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1046:Powley ruling
1043:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1006:
1005:
1001:
999:
998:
994:
992:
991:
987:
985:
984:
980:
978:
977:
973:
971:
970:
966:
964:
963:
959:
957:
956:
952:
950:
949:
945:
944:
942:
938:
928:
925:
921:
918:
917:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
901:
898:
897:
893:
890:
887:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
859:
855:
851:
848:
846:
843:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
828:
826:
823:
821:
818:
816:
813:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
797:
795:
792:
789:
788:
784:
783:
781:
775:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
724:
722:
716:
709:
708:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
682:Nanfan Treaty
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
667:
665:
661:
660:Confederation
656:
653:
649:Treaties and
647:
641:
640:
636:
634:
633:Treaty rights
631:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
605:
603:
599:
594:
593:customary law
588:
584:
580:
573:
568:
566:
561:
559:
554:
553:
550:
533:
529:
523:
520:
509:
508:National Post
505:
499:
496:
492:
487:
484:
480:
475:
472:
468:
463:
460:
456:
451:
448:
444:
439:
436:
432:
427:
424:
420:
415:
412:
408:
403:
400:
396:
391:
388:
384:
379:
376:
372:
367:
364:
360:
355:
352:
346:
343:
332:
331:www.dgwlaw.ca
328:
322:
319:
313:
310:
304:
301:
295:
292:
286:
283:
271:
267:
261:
258:
247:
246:National Post
243:
237:
234:
231:
226:
223:
219:
218:www.dgwlaw.ca
213:
210:
207:
202:
199:
196:
191:
188:
185:
180:
177:
173:
172:www.dgwlaw.ca
167:
164:
158:
156:
153:
152:Marshall case
144:
142:
138:
135:
130:
126:
119:
117:
113:
110:
104:
97:
94:
91:
85:
81:
74:
72:
65:
61:
57:
54:
52:
48:
44:
40:
35:
33:
29:
25:
24:
19:
1206:
1196:Pittailiniit
1194:
1150:
1149:
1142:
1135:
1128:
1121:
1114:
1107:
1100:
1093:
1086:
1081:R v Gonzales
1079:
1065:
1058:
1053:R v Drybones
1051:
1044:
1037:
1030:
1023:
1018:R v Marshall
1016:
1009:
1002:
995:
988:
981:
974:
967:
960:
953:
946:
905:(since 2004)
894:
856:
796:(1871–1921)
785:
718:Upper Canada
705:
638:
536:. Retrieved
534:. 2019-05-29
531:
522:
511:. Retrieved
507:
498:
490:
486:
478:
474:
466:
462:
454:
450:
442:
438:
430:
426:
418:
414:
406:
402:
394:
390:
382:
378:
373:at 463; 397.
370:
366:
358:
354:
345:
334:. Retrieved
330:
321:
312:
303:
294:
285:
274:. Retrieved
272:. 2019-02-15
269:
260:
249:. Retrieved
245:
236:
229:
225:
217:
212:
205:
201:
194:
190:
183:
179:
171:
166:
148:
139:
131:
127:
123:
114:
105:
101:
90:Upper Canada
87:
82:
78:
70:
58:
55:
39:First Nation
36:
22:
21:
20:
18:
1213:Plains Cree
1208:Wahkohtowin
1109:R v Sparrow
915:Land claims
865:White Paper
790:(1869–1876)
779:(post-1867)
710:(1857–1869)
696:(1764–1784)
690:(1725–1779)
532:C2C Journal
109:Anishinaabe
1242:Categories
1116:Re Eskimos
1088:R v Guerin
1067:R v Gladue
1004:Kruger v R
955:R v Badger
858:Indian Act
663:(pre-1867)
538:2020-11-05
513:2020-11-05
445:at 429-31.
336:2020-10-30
276:2020-11-02
251:2020-11-05
159:References
75:Background
51:defendants
43:plaintiffs
751:Treaty 45
702:(1850–54)
145:Aftermath
98:Arguments
940:Case law
720:treaties
120:Decision
45:and the
1179:Miꞌkmaq
1095:R v Jim
672:(1670s)
493:at 598.
481:at 592.
469:at 561.
457:at 571.
433:at 519.
421:at 491.
409:at 477.
397:at 454.
385:at 457.
270:JFK Law
899:(2002)
891:(1998)
885:(1995)
879:(1993)
873:(1975)
867:(1969)
759:(1836)
753:(1836)
747:(1827)
741:(1815)
735:(1798)
729:(1787)
684:(1701)
678:(1701)
1201:Inuit
883:RCAP
658:Pre-
581:and
132:The
41:as
1244::
850:11
845:10
530:.
506:.
329:.
268:.
244:.
60:4.
1215:)
1211:(
1203:)
1199:(
1191:)
1187:(
1181:)
1177:(
840:9
835:8
830:7
825:6
820:5
815:4
810:3
805:2
800:1
571:e
564:t
557:v
541:.
516:.
339:.
279:.
254:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
