Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1999) 101 O.T.C. 1 (SC)

• Judge: A. Campbell, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 101 O.T.C. 1 (SC)

Chippewas v. Can. (A.G.) (1999), 101 O.T.C. 1 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. MY.044

The Chippewas of Sarnia Band (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and Canadian National Railway Company, Dow Chemical Canada Inc., The Corporation of the City of Sarnia, Amoco Canada Resources Ltd., Ontario Hydro, Union Gas Limited, Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc., The Bank of Montreal, The Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, individually and as class representatives (defendants)

(95-CU-92484)

Indexed As: Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

A. Campbell, J.

April 30, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff, the Chippewas of Sarnia Band, claimed ownership of four square miles in the City of Sarnia and its outskirts, now occupied by over 2,000 families, homeowners, businesses, churches, and individuals. The land was protected by Treaty 29, which solemnly guaranteed the land to the Chippewas "and their posterity at all times hereafter, for their own exclusive use and enjoyment". The Chippewas sought a declaration that their treaty protected common law and aboriginal title in the disputed land was never extinguished and that they alone had the exclusive right to occupy, enjoy, possess and use the disputed land. They sought damages for trespass and damages against the Crown for breach of fiduciary duty. Alternatively, they sought vesting orders and writs of possession against the residential owners. The Attorney General for Canada moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Chippewa claim for possession and trespass, arguing that: the land was sold by private sale to Cameron, a land speculator, in 1839; an order in council in 1840 approved the purchase; and the land was conveyed to Cameron by patent in 1853. The Attorney General argued that the 1839 sale and the 1853 patent, on the undisputed facts, were valid and that the Chippewa claim therefore raised no serious issue to be tried. The present owners also moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Chippewa claim. They supported the position of the Attorney General for Canada and further argued that: the Crown had the power to extinguish Indian title in the land unilaterally and did so in the 1853 patent to Cameron; the intervening 145 years provided defences of statutory limitations and equitable delay; they were good faith purchasers who bought their land for value and in good faith, relying on the good root of title provided by the 1853 Crown patent and without any notice of the Chippewa claim until the Chippewas commenced this lawsuit in 1995; and these defences, on the undisputed evidence, barred the Chippewa claim. The Chippewas cross-moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the 1853 patent was void and their claim should succeed because the defendants had raised no serious issue to be tried in relation to the validity of the 1839 sale or the 1853 patent, or the statutory limitations or equitable defences. These motions did not affect the Chippewas' underlying claim against the Crown for damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Ontario Superior Court held, inter alia, that: the disputed land was never surrendered by the Chippewas, nor was there any intention by the Chippewas to surrender the land; the Quebec Act of 1774 did not repeal the surrender provisions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and those provisions remained in force at the time of the Cameron sale and the 1853 patent both directly of their own force and because they had ripened into a rule of common law; the patent to Cameron of the disputed land was made without authority, prohibited, void ab initio and of no force or effect; no Ontario limitations statute could affect the disputed land, neither of its own force nor through referential incorporation in a federal statute; the federal government, even before 1982, lacked the power to unilaterally extinguish treaties or treaty protected rights; alternatively, Parliament before 1982 could only extinguish a treaty right unilaterally if its intention to do so was evidenced clearly and plainly; there was a high onus to establish the intent to extinguish which was not satisfied here; in any event, the colonial legislatures that enacted the "federal" statutes in issue had no power to affect or extinguish the plaintiffs' aboriginal or treaty rights which were matters within exclusive Imperial authority and beyond colonial legislative power; assuming, for the purposes of argument, that the defences of laches, acquiesence and estoppel were available to bar a claim for the recovery of unceded, unsurrendered Indian land protected by Treaty 29, there was no evidence to support their application here; the defences of laches and acquiescence were defeated by the Chippewas' lack of knowledge of the facts and the absence of neglect; the defence of estoppel was not available where there was no evidence that the Chippewas had an informed intent to elect to surrender the disputed land; there was no basis for the application of the adherence doctrine; the defendant owners were completely innocent, having bought their homes and workplaces in good faith without notice of any potential defect in title until the plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit in 1995; from August 26, 1861, the date Cameron was completely off title, the defence of good faith purchaser for value without notice would extinguish immediately on purchase any ordinary legal or equitable interest in the disputed land; treaty protected aboriginal title was a unique right that touched upon the honour of the nation and ought to be sedulously protected by the courts; ordinary property doctrines, such as the good faith purchaser defence, should not be applied to extinguish treaty protected aboriginal title unless their impact could meet the modern tests of justification and reconciliation developed by the Supreme Court of Canada; a 60 year equitable limitation would protect aboriginal property interests against immediate extinguishment on sale to a good faith purchaser, a protection far more generous than that accorded to individual property interests, and at the same time protect the rights of innocent purchasers without notice; it would be unconscionable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute to let this action proceed against the present owners because, inter alia, it would not promote the reconciliation of aboriginal societies with the rest of Canadian society to cloud the titles and potentially divest of their homes and workplaces thousands of innocent people spread over a quarter of a modern city on the basis of a defect in an 1853 land patent when the aboriginal claimants had a legally adequate alternative remedy against the Crown; the 60 year equitable limitation to the claim against the good faith purchasers for value without notice began on August 26, 1861, when Cameron sold the last piece of the disputed land and therefore expired on August 26, 1921; at that time, no action having been brought against the good faith purchasers, the defence of good faith purchaser for value without notice operated to extinguish the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Chippewas in the disputed land on August 26, 1921; and those extinguished rights crystallized into a damage claim against the Crown. The court allowed the Chippewas' motion for a declaration that the 1853 patent was void. The court allowed the present owners' motion respecting only the relief sought against them, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim against them on the grounds that the defence of good faith purchaser for value protected their title and an equitable limitation period of 60 years applied to extinguish, on August 26 1921, all Chippewa right and title in the disputed land. The court declared that the present owners held their title free and clear from any cloud of aboriginal title or treaty rights. The court dismissed the other motions.

Equity - Topic 2061

Equitable defences - Laches - General - See paragraph 674.

Estoppel - Topic 3

General principles - When available - See paragraph 674.

Estoppel - Topic 1161

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Representation - By conduct - Acquiescence - See paragraphs 655 to 667.

Estoppel - Topic 1166

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Representation - By conduct - Selection of another remedy - See paragraphs 668 to 671.

Estoppel - Topic 1325

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence - Construction of buildings on land - See paragraphs 655 to 667.

Estoppel - Topic 1327

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence - Standing by without objection - See paragraphs 655 to 667.

Estoppel - Topic 1365

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Laches or delay - Claim to title to land - See paragraphs 655 to 666.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 800

Personal or legal rights - General - See paragraphs 607 to 641.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 802

Personal or legal rights - General - Limitation of actions - See paragraphs 433 to 654 and 761 to 769.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4404

Treaties and proclamations - General - Effect of - See paragraphs 1 to 833.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4404.1

Treaties and proclamations - General - Effect of Imperial legislation - See paragraphs 258 to 335.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4405

Treaties and proclamations - General - Effect of federal legislation - See paragraphs 546 to 606.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4406

Treaties and proclamations - General - When applicable - See paragraphs 241 to 396.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 4409

Treaties and proclamations - General - Extinguishment - See paragraphs 1 to 833.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5406

Lands - General - Application of provincial laws - See paragraphs 446 to 518.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5461

Lands - Surrender of lands - General - See paragraphs 39 to 240.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5464

Lands - Surrender of lands - What constitutes a surrender - See paragraphs 39 to 240.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5479

Lands - Surrender of lands - Form of - See paragraphs 241 to 343.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3162

Actions in tort - Trespass or injury to property - When time begins to run - See paragraphs 788 to 789.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 4061

Recovery of land - Commencement of limitation period - General - See paragraphs 607 to 654, 717 to 721.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available - See paragraphs 779 to 787.

Real Property - Topic 6086

Title - Extinguishment, prescription and adverse possession - Defences - Purchase of land in question by bona fide purchaser without notice - See paragraphs 680 to 833.

Words and Phrases

Waste or unsettled land in us vested - The Ontario Court (General Division) considered the meaning of this phrase as contained in Lord Elgin's Commission of 1846 as Governor General of Canada - See paragraphs 413 to 419.

Cases Noticed:

Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1995), 24 O.R.(3d) 654 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1996), 95 O.A.C. 365; 31 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), affd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 756; 226 N.R. 121; 109 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

Doe d. Sheldon v. Ramsay et al. (1852), 9 U.C.Q.B. 105, refd to. [para. 177, footnote 107].

Opetchesaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada al. (1997), 211 N.R. 241; 90 B.C.A.C. 1; 147 W.A.C. 1; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 181, footnote 109].

R. v. Smith - see Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General).

Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554; 47 N.R. 132, refd to. [para. 223, footnote 120].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344; 190 N.R. 89; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193, reving. [1993] 3 F.C. 28; 151 N.R. 241; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 504; [1993] 2 C.N.L.R. 20 (F.C.A.), affing. [1988] 3 F.C. 20; 14 F.T.R. 161; [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 73 (T.D.), dist. [paras. 224, 504, footnotes 121, 265].

Apsassin - see Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development).

St. Mary's Indian Band et al. v. Cranbrook (City) (1997), 213 N.R. 290; 92 B.C.A.C. 161; 150 W.A.C. 161; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 224, footnote 121].

Bown v. West (1846), 1 U.C. Jur. 639 (U.C.C. Chanc.), affd. (1846), 1 E. & A. 117 (U.C. Executive Council), dist. [para. 225, footnote 122].

R. v. George - see Canada (Attorney General) v. George.

Canada (Attorney General) v. George, [1964] 2 O.R. 429 (C.A.), affing. [1964] 1 O.R. 24 (H.C.), revd. [1966] S.C.R. 267, consd. [para. 242, footnote 125].

Hopton v. Pamajewon - see Skerryvore Ratepayers Association et al. v. Shawanaga Indian Band et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pamajewon - see Skerryvore Ratepayers Association et al. v. Shawanaga Indian Band et al.

Skerryvore Ratepayers Association et al. v. Shawanaga Indian Band et al. (1990), 71 O.R.(2d) 737 (H.C.), refd. (1993), 68 O.A.C. 68; 16 O.R.(3d) 390 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 228; 72 O.A.C. 157; 17 O.R.(3d) xvii (S.C.C.), revd. [para. 242, footnote 126].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation et al. (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 353; 15 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (H.C.), affd. (1989), 32 O.A.C. 66; 68 O.R.(2d) 394 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 127 N.R. 147; 46 O.A.C. 396, dist. [para. 244, footnote 128].

R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [1982] 1 Q.B. 892 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 249, footnote 132].

St. Catherines Milling & Lumber Co. v. R. (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46 (P.C.), affing. (1887), 13 S.C.R. 577, affing. (1956), 13 O.A.R. 148 (C.A.), affing. (1885), 10 O.R. 196 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 275].

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] S.C.R. 313, refd to. [para. 276, footnote 141].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 275].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 275, footnote 140].

Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh (1823), 8 Wheat. 543 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 276, footnote 141].

R. v. Van der Peet (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; 200 N.R. 1; 80 B.C.A.C. 81; 130 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 276, footnote 141].

Campbell v. Hall (1774), Lofft. 655 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 289, footnote 150].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 487, refd to. [para. 292, footnote 153].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1921] 1 A.C. 401 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 306, footnote 161].

Star Chrome Case - see Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General).

R. v. Lady McMaster, [1926] Ex. C.R. 68, refd to. [para. 307, footnote 163].

Easterbrook v. R., [1931] S.C.R. 210, affing. [1929] Ex. C.R. 28, dist. [para. 313, footnote 165].

Isaac et al. v. Davey et al. (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 170; 5 O.R.(2d) 610 (C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 897; 16 N.R. 29, refd to. [para. 320, footnote 169].

Jackson v. Wilkes (1835), 4 U.C.Q.B.O.S. 142, refd to. [para. 378, footnote 201].

Roberts v. Canada - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band.

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 241; 25 F.T.R. 161, refd to. [para. 380, footnote 206].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 380, footnote 206].

R. v. McCormick (1859), 18 U.C.Q.B. 131, refd to. [para. 389, footnote 214].

Wik Peoples v. Queensland (1996), 71 A.L.J.R. 173 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 406, footnote 219].

Mabo v. Queensland (1992), 66 A.L.J.R. 408 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 406, footnote 219].

R. v. Strong (1850), 1 Gr. 392 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 408, footnote 220].

Hamlet of Baker Lake v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1979), 107 D.L.R.(3d) 513 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 408, footnote 221].

Corinthe v. St. Sulpice, [1912] A.C. 872, refd to. [para. 410, footnote 223].

Mutchmore v. Davis (1868), 14 Gr. 346 (Ont. Ch.), refd to. [para. 411, footnote 225].

Church v. Fenton (1878), 28 U.C.C.P. 381 (Ont. C.P.), refd to. [para. 411, footnote 225].

Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold et al. (1901), 32 S.C.R. 1, affd. [1903] A.C. 73 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 411, footnote 225].

Jephson v. Reira (1835), 3 Knapp 130 (P.C.), folld. [para. 421, footnote 229].

Montgomery v. Ives (1849), 13 Smedes and Marshall's Reports 161 (Miss. H.C.E. & A.), folld. [para. 424, footnote 231].

R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 109 N.R. 22; 30 Q.A.C. 280, folld. [para. 427].

Teis v. Ancaster (Town) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 453, footnote 236].

Uukw et al. v. British Columbia and Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 C.N.L.R. 173 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 80 N.R. 315 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 471, footnote 240].

Cardinal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1974] S.C.R. 694, refd to. [para. 476, footnote 241].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America, Labour Relations Board (Ont.) and Brant et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 476, footnote 242].

R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; 85 N.R. 3; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 243; 217 A.P.R. 243, refd to. [para. 476, footnote 243].

Surrey (District) v. Peace Arch Enterprises Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 380 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 477, footnote 244].

R. v. Martin (1917), 41 O.L.R. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 477, footnote 245].

R. v. Kruger and Manuel, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495, refd to. [para. 477, footnote 245].

Stoney Creek Indian Band v. British Columbia et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. E96 (S.C.), folld. [para. 478, footnote 246].

R. v. Dick, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; 62 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 484, footnote 248].

R. v. Côté (F.) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; 202 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 484, footnote 249].

R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; 62 N.R. 366; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 171 A.P.R. 15, refd to. [para. 485, footnote 250].

Derrickson v. Derrickson et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; 65 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 491, footnote 253].

Paul v. Paul et al., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 306; 65 N.R. 291, refd to. [para. 492, footnote 254].

Kruger v. Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 3; 58 N.R. 241; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 591 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 498, footnote 261].

Sterritt v. Canada - see Gitanmaax Indian Band et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development).

Gitanmaax Indian Band et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1989), 27 F.T.R. 47 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 498, footnote 261].

Mastini v. Bell Telephone (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 215 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 530, footnote 273].

Johnson, Ex parte, [1959] O.R. 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 531, footnote 274].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 540, footnote 276].

Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secretary), [1921] 2 A.C. 399, refd to. [para. 544, footnote 278].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 544, footnote 279].

R. v. Agawa (1988), 28 O.A.C. 201; 65 O.R.(2d) 505 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 547, footnote 280].

Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517, refd to. [para. 559].

Sikyea v. R., [1964] S.C.R. 642; [1965] 2 C.C.C. 129, affing. (1964), 46 W.W.R.(N.S.) 65 (N.W.T.C.A.), reving. (1962), 40 W.W.R.(N.S.) 494 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), consd. [para. 559].

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 560, footnote 285].

R. v. Horse; R. v. Standingwater, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 187; 82 N.R. 206; 65 Sask.R. 176, refd to. [para. 563, footnote 287].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 563, footnote 288].

United States v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. (1941), 314 U.S. 339 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 565, footnote 290].

R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345, folld. [para. 568, footnote 295].

R. v. Ireland (1990), 1 O.R.(3d) 577 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 569, footnote 296].

R. v. Taylor and Williams (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 572].

Sikyea v. R. (1962), 40 W.W.R.(N.S.) 494 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 580, footnote 304].

Sikyea v. R. (1964), 46 W.W.R.(N.S.) 65 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 584, footnote 308].

Gibb v. White (1872), 5 P.R. 315, refd to. [para. 613, footnote 319].

Ontario v. Canada and Quebec; Indian Land Claims, Re (1895), 25 S.C.R. 434, refd to. [para. 615, footnote 323].

St. Ann's Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd. v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 211, dist. [para. 624].

Bannon v. Pervais (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 276 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 625, footnote 325].

Pasco v. Canadian National Railway Co. - see Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band Chief v. Canadian National Railway Co.

Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band Chief v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 117; 103 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 628, footnote 330].

Pasco v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1986] 1 C.N.L.R. 35 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 631, footnote 332].

Semiahmoo Indian Band et al. v. Canada, [1998] 1 F.C. 3; 215 N.R. 241; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 523 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 639, footnote 335].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band (1995), 99 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 659, footnote 342].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 660, footnote 344].

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874), L.R. 5 P.C. 221 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 660, footnote 344].

Oneida County, N.Y. v. Oneida Nation (1985), 470 U.S. 226 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 662, footnote 346].

Leonard v. Gottfriedson (1980), 21 B.C.L.R. 326 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 670, footnote 350].

R. v. Cowichan Agricultural Society, [1951] 1 D.L.R. 96 (Ex. Ct.), dist. [para. 671].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241; 146 D.L.R.(4th) 214, refd to. [para. 674, footnote 356].

Pilcher v. Rawlins (1872), L.R. 7 Ch. App. 259, folld. [para. 686, footnote 359].

Babcock v. Lawson (1880), 5 Q.B.D. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 688, footnote 361].

Kingu v. Walmar Ventures Ltd. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 51 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 688, footnote 361].

Union Bank of Halifax v. Indian and General Investment Trust (1908), 40 S.C.R. 510, refd to. [para. 688, footnote 363].

Babcock v. Carr et al.; Babcock v. Archibald et al. (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 65 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 688, footnote 363].

Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin, [1917] A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 728, footnote 377].

Fahey v. Roberts (1916), 51 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 134 A.P.R. 329 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 732, footnote 378].

R. v. Nikal (J.B.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; 196 N.R. 1; 74 B.C.A.C. 161; 121 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 742, footnote 380].

Perrie v. Martin, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 41; 64 N.R. 195; 12 O.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 745, footnote 383].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 200 N.R. 189; 79 B.C.A.C. 161; 129 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 746, footnote 385].

Consumers' Glass Co. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. (1985), 9 O.A.C. 193; 51 O.R.(2d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 766, footnote 396].

Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie et al. (1990), 75 O.R.(2d) 225 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Halliwushka v. Assaly (Thomas C.) Corp. (1988), 29 C.P.C.(2d) 251 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1990), 48 C.P.C.(2d) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Ungerman (Irving) Ltd. et al. v. Galanis and Haut (1991), 50 O.A.C. 176; 4 O.R.(3d) 545 (C.A.), folld. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Standard Trustco Ltd. (Bankrupt) v. Standard Trust Co. (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 7 (Gen. Div.), revd. (1995), 86 O.A.C. 1; 26 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

1061590 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario Jockey Club et al. (1995), 77 O.A.C. 196; 21 O.R.(3d) 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Cadillac Fairview/JMB Properties et al. (1995), 79 O.A.C. 303; 21 O.R.(3d) 783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Rogers Cable T.V. Ltd. v. 373041 Ontario Ltd. (1994), 22 O.R.(3d) 25 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1999), 118 O.A.C. 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 780, footnote 398].

Agounie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 114; 38 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 781, footnote 399].

Dawson et al. v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc. et al. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 787].

Lower Kootenay Indian Band v. Canada, [1992] 2 C.N.L.R. 54; 42 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 789, footnote 404].

Clark v. Smith (1839), 13 Peters 195 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 792, footnote 407].

Statutes Noticed:

Administration of Justice, An Act Respecting the, R.S.O. 1897, c. 324, sect. 38(3) [para. 445].

Albany Treaty, 1701, generally [para. 569].

Anti-trespass Act, An Act for the Protection of the Indians in Upper Canada from Imposition, and the Property Occupied or Enjoyed by them from Trespass and Injury, 1850, 13 & 14 Vict., c. 74, sect. 1 [para. 360, footnote 181].

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-35, sect. 39 [para. 445].

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, S.C. 1990, c. 8, sect. 32 [para. 501].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 39(1) [para. 497].

Further Limitation of Actions and Suits relating to Real Property, An Act for the, S.O. 1874, c. 16, sect. 1, sect .15 [para. 445].

General Quiet of the Subjects Against All Pretences of Concealment Whatsoever, An Act to Amend and Render More Effectual An Act for the, 1769, 9 Geo. III, c. 16, sect. 1 [para. 520, footnote 268].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1927, sect. 64 [para. 692].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 88 [para. 482].

Law of England in Certain Matters, An Act Adopting the, R.S.O. 1897, c. 111, sect. 1 [para. 445].

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. L-15, generally [para. 445].

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-15, sect. 4 [para. 448], sect. 15 [para. 449].

Limitations and Avoiding Suits in Law, An Act for, 1623, 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, sect. 3 [para. 445].

Limitations of Actions and Suits Relating to Real Property and the Time of Prescription in Certain Cases, An Act Respecting the, 1859, C.S.U.C., c. 88, sect. 1 [para. 525]; sect. 16 [para. 527].

Making More Effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America and to Introduce the English Law as the Rule of Decision in all Matters of Controversy, Relative to Property and Civil Rights, An Act to repeal certain parts of An Act for, 1792 (U.C.), 32 Geo. III, c. 1, sect. 3 [para. 445].

Management of the Indian Lands and Property, An Act Respecting the, 1860, 23 Vict., c. 151, sect. 4 [para. 595, footnote 312].

Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M - 40, sect. 13 [para. 466].

Property and Civil Rights, An Act Respecting, 1859, C.S.U.C., c. 9, sect. 1 [para. 445].

Quebec Act, 1774 (U.K.), 14 Geo. III, c. 83, generally [para. 258]; sect. 3 [para. 261]; sect. 4 [para. 263].

Real Property, and to Render the Proceedings for Recovering Possession Thereof in Certain Cases, Less Difficult and Expensive, An Act to Amend the Law Respecting, 1834 (U.C.), 4 Will. IV, c. 1, sect. 16 [para. 525]; sect. 37 [para. 527].

Registry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R-20, sect. 70(1) [para. 468].

Royal Proclamation, 1763, generally [para. 245]; Part I, preamble, para. 2, Part IV, preamble, para. 1, para. 2, para. 3, para. 4(a), para. 4(b), para. 5 [Appendix B].

Statute Law Revision Act, S.O. 1902, c. 1, sect. 2, sect. 17 [para. 445].

Treaty, 1863, generally [para. 75, footnote 54, Appendix A].

Treaty 27 1/2, 1825, generally [paras. 20, 75, footnote 53, Appendix A].

Treaty 29, 1827, generally [para. 1, Appendix A].

Treaty 53 1/2, 1843, generally [para. 75, footnote 52, Appendix A].

Treaty 68 1/2, 1852, generally [para. 75, footnote 54, Appendix A].

Treaty 69, 1852, generally [para. 75, Appendix A].

Treaty 71 1/2, 1854, generally [para. 75, footnote 54, Appendix A].

Treaty 98, 1862, generally [para. 75, footnote 54, Appendix A].

Treaty 107, 1866, generally [para. 75, footnote 54, Appendix A].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bagot Report - see Rawson, W., Davidson, John and Hepburn, William, Bagot Commission Report.

Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Partners in Confederation, pp. 15 [para. 245, footnotes 129, 130, 131]; 15 to 23 [para. 245, footnote 130]; vol. 1, p. 261 [para. 380, footnote 206].

Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Treaty Making in the Spirit of Co-Existence, p. 46 [paras. 751, 824, footnotes 388, 413].

Cheshire, Geoffrey Chevalier, and Burn, E.H., Modern Law of Real Property (15th Ed. 1994), p. 59 [para. 688, footnote 364].

Darling, H.C., Report (July 24, 1828), generally [para. 50, footnote 37].

Di Castri, Victor, The Law of Vendor and Purchaser (3rd Ed. 1988), p. 522 [para. 716, footnote 372].

Gilkinson, Augusta I.G., Some Events in the Life of Capt. Joseph Brant Not Generally Noticed (1923), Ontario Historical Society Papers and Records, vol. 20, p. 90 [para. 566, footnote 294].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976 - Reissue), vol. 16, pp. 690, 691, paras. 749, 751, 756 [para. 688, footnote 363].

Hanbury and Maudsley, Modern Equity (13th Ed. 1989), pp. 617, 618 [para. 761, footnote 392].

Harring, Sidney L., White Man's Law: Native People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Jurisprudence (1998), Osgoode Society, p. 36 [para. 366, footnote 189].

Kennedy, W.P.M., Statutes, Treaties and Documents of the Canadian Constitution (2nd Ed. 1930), p. 427 [para. 48, footnote 35].

Leighton, Douglas, The Compact Tory as Bureaucrat: Samuel Peters Jarvis and the Indian Department, 1837-1845 (1981), 73 Ontario History 40, generally [para. 45, footnote 33]; p. 46 [para. 45, footnote 34].

Leslie, John F., Commissions of Inquiry into Indian Affairs in the Canadas, 1828-1858; Evolving a Corporate Memory for the Indian Department, M.A. Thesis (1984), p. 82 [para. 52, footnote 38].

Leslie, John, The Bagot Commission: Developing a Corporate Memory for the Indian Department (1982), Historical Papers, pp. 31 to 53 [para. 50, footnote 37].

Lester, Geoffrey S., The Problem of Ancient Documents (1998), 20 Adv. Q. 101, p. 133 [para. 11, footnote 8].

Macaulay, Hepburn, William and Jameson, Robert, Legislative Assembly's Committee No. 4 Report (January 1840), generally [para. 50, footnote 37]; pp. 12, 13 [para. 364, footnote 187].

Macaulay, James Buchanan, Report (April 22, 1839), generally [paras. 50, 386, footnotes 37, 210].

Maitland, Collected Papers, vol. 3, p. 350 [para. 688, footnote 364].

Maitland, F.W., The Forms of Action at Common Law, A Course of Lectures (1936), generally [para. 283, footnote 147].

McNeil, Kent, Co-Existence of Indigenous Rights and Other Interests in Land in Australia and Canada, [1997] 3 C.N.L.R. 1, pp. 2, 16, 17, 18 [para. 406, footnote 219].

Meagher, R.P., Gummow, W.M.C., and Lehane, J.R.F., Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 755 [para. 661, footnote 345].

Megarry, Robert, Miscellany-at-Law, Table Talk of John Selden (1689), generally [para. 674, footnote 357].

Nelles, H.V., Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 12, generally [para. 717, footnote 374]; p. 389 [para. 147, footnote 97].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Limitation of Actions (1969), generally [para. 754].

Pennefather Commission Report (1858), generally [para. 50, footnote 37]; p. 115 [para. 364, footnote 187].

Perell, Paul M., Remedies and the Sale of Land (1988), p. 142 [para. 688, footnote 363].

Rawson, W., Davidson, John and Hepburn, William, Bagot Commission Report (January 22, 1844), (1845) Legislative Assembly Journals, generally [paras. 33, 50, footnote 37]; s. III, pp. 23, 24 [para. 364, footnote 187].

Riddell, William Renwick, The Bar and the Courts of the Province of Upper Canada or Ontario, Toronto (1928), pp. 191, 192 [para. 372, footnote 193].

Slattery, Brian, The Land Rights of Indigenous Canadian Peoples, Doctoral Dissertation (1979), generally [para. 250, footnote 133].

Slattery, Brian, Understanding Aboriginal Rights (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727, pp. 779, 780 [para. 492, footnote 255].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 955, 956 [para. 11, footnote 8].

Sumner, Henry James, Dissertations on Early Law and Custom (1883), p. 389 [para. 283, footnote 147].

Waite, P.B., Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 12, pp. 97, 98 [para. 388, footnote 213].

Walter, Mark D., Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1705-1773) And The Legal Status of Aboriginal Customary Laws and Government in British North America (1995), 33 Osgoode Hall L.J. 785, pp. 789 to 803 [para. 344, footnote 175].

Woodward, Jack, Native Law in Canada (1994), pp. 395, 396 [para. 625, footnote 326].

Counsel:

Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., George S. Glezos, Mary Locke Macaulay and Elizabeth K.P. Grace, for the plaintiff, Chippewas of Sarnia Band;

Charlotte A. Bell, Q.C., and Gary Penner, for the defendant, Attorney General of Canada;

J.T.S. McCabe, Q.C., for the defendants, Her Majesty in Right of Ontario and Ontario Housing Corporation;

Kenneth R. Peel, for the defendant, Canadian National Railway;

Ian Binnie, Q.C., and Robert Janes, for the defendant, Dow Chemical Canada Inc.;

Valerie R. M'Garry, for the defendant, City of Sarnia;

Gerard T. Tillmann and Susan L. Murdoch, for the defendants, Bank of Montreal and Canada Trustco Mortgage Company;

Eric R. Finn, for the defendant, Ontario Hydro;

Douglas A. Sulman, Q.C., for the defendant, Union Gas Limited;

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., and Terry D. McEwan, for the defendant, Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc.;

Jeff G. Cowan and Jill M. Dougherty, for the defendant, Amoco Canada Resources Ltd.

These motions were heard on November 18-21, 24-28, December 1, 1997, and January 7, 1998, by A. Campbell, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who delivered the following decision on April 30, 1999.