My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Love it or leave it! Peace.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

Six Nations, Brantford - "legal landscape has changed" Provincial Court plays politics? "Injunction hearing set for December" What is this? The Ontario Superior Court in Brantford previously adjourned a motion for a permanent interlocutory injunction against Six Nations to prevent them from interfering with development in Brantford, saying ...

I am mindful that this is an adjournment for what should be a relatively short period of time to allow the parties to compile a complete record to be placed before the judge hearing the motion for the interlocutory injunction.

In adjourning the proceedings, the judge set 'terms' saying ...

[7] In my view, whether the defendants or other aboriginal persons have an interest in the lands described in Schedule A is a triable issue. Further, in my view, irreparable harm will be suffered by the City of Brantford if it is not permitted to control development of, and construction on, lands within its jurisdiction. Thirdly, the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff.

In my view, the judge failed to consider Six Nations Constitutional right to be consulted about all development on their traditional lands, regardless of "triable" 'land claims'. He also failed to consider the 'inconvenience' to Six Nations if land on which they have rights or title is being paved and developed without their consent. Since the Adjournment, an Ontario Court of Appeal decision came down in the case of Ardoch Algonquins v Frontenac Ventures which has significant implications for Brantford. In it, the Appeal Court set aside sentences for 'contempt' for AAFN people violating an injunction. The court further reinforced the fact that the Crown, the company and the First Nation all had a duty to negotiate a resolution of the issue of development on traditional Algonquin land. It is clear that the Brantford judge erred on the side of Brantford in setting terms for adjounment of an injunction that amounted to an injunction anyway. It is also clear that the permanent motion decision must take into account this decision of the Court of Appeal. How best to maintain Brantford's development plans? Hmm ... I know! Let's not 'hear' the case until the construction season is over! YA!! So that is what exactly what Brantford's court has done. As in Haldimand County court, when 'Ontario Superior Courts' act only in defense of the economic development of that community, to the detriment of the Constitutional rights of Indigenous Peoples and their own economic development, one has to ask why the rights of one group are placed above the other's. One might also wonder about the independence of the court. Injunction hearing set for December Lawyers representing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute want a judge to hear the city's application for a permanent injunction. On Friday morning, lawyers filed a motion to set a court date for a hearing on the city's application for a permanent injunction against native protesters. Lou Strezos, one of the lawyers representing HDI, said the first available dates were Dec. 22 and 23. They're hoping to work with the city to find an earlier date to hear the injunction. "We're going to do everything we can to get an earlier date," Strezos said. The city filed for a permanent injunction in May. The injunction would restrain Six Nations protesters from interfering with development sites and grant the city $110 million in damages. That request was turned down, but Justice G. E. Taylor granted a temporary injunction against native protests at a number of contested development sites. The temporary injunction lasts until the parties return to court for a hearing into the permanent injunction. FRONTENAC COUNTY Strezos said they filed the motion in light of a decision in favour of native protesters in Frontenac County. They believe the judge's ruling in that case will mean the city's application for an injunction will be overturned. ... "It's our view that the legal landscape has changed since Justice Taylor issued his decision," Strezos said. However, he stressed that the issue is one for the court to decide. Copyright © 2008 Brantford Expositor

No comments:

Post a Comment

My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Two Row Wampum Treaty

Two Row Wampum Treaty
"It is said that, each nation shall stay in their own vessels, and travel the river side by side. Further, it is said, that neither nation will try to steer the vessel of the other." This is a treaty among Indigenous Nations, and with Canada. This is the true nature of our relationships with Indigenous Nations of 'Kanata'.