My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Love it or leave it! Peace.
Showing posts with label Appellate Court of Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Appellate Court of Ontario. Show all posts

Saturday, July 26, 2008

John Tory babbles again ... Tory has harsh words for aboriginal protesters
July 25, 2008
RECORD STAFF

CAMBRIDGE

Stories of face-to-face confrontations, threats, and rumours of expanding First Nations land claims are spreading anxiety throughout the local construction industry.

"There's a sense of fear," said Martha George, president of the Grand Valley Construction Association.

"It's kind of a bit of hearsay. We're all getting worried that what's going to happen here is what's happened in Caledonia."

New native development fees, claimed for land along the length of the Grand River, add to the worries for construction companies, fearful projects will be stalled by protests if they don't abide by demands for First Nations' approval of projects.

Construction firms want the land claims issues settled by negotiation as soon as possible.

Construction firms need to get legal advice because it is apparent that they don't know the laws they operate under: First Nations approval IS REQUIRED. Developers MUST CONSULT. It isn't just about resolving 'land claims' (Aboriginal Title). It is about the 'Aboriginal Rights' that developers and governments must respect. And that includes their right to say "no" to development.

"We don't want to see anyone injured," George said. "We don't want another Ipperwash."

Provincial Conservative Leader John Tory, who met with the association's board, blamed the Liberal government for emboldening what he calls native law breakers.

"I think when you let the rule of law break down, lots of things happen," Tory said. Along with encouraging civil disobedience in native communities, Liberal inaction also opens the door for organized crime to move into lawless areas, Tory charged.

Blah, blah, blah! John Tory, see above. You don't have a friggen clue what the law is!

Premier Dalton McGuinty needs to take control, use the "prestige of his office" and show Ontario won't negotiate with bullies.

The premier should call native leaders into his office and tell them negotiations to solve land claims won't happen while people break the law by occupying land.

hahahahahahahahahahahaahaaaaahhhhahahahahaha.

That Tory is such a comedian, eh? Dalton has no moral authority to call them on the carpet! Dalton is the one BREAKING THE LAW!!!

He applauded Brantford for taking a tough stand against native occupations by getting court injunctions against protesters. What's needed is for the courts to strongly enforce existing laws against threats and violence, Tory says.

Negotiated settlements to native land claims need to be sorted out as quickly as possible but not when on one side are flagrantly breaking the law, Tory said.

Tory has no sympathy for aboriginal people who say they're following their laws. If they are counting on Canada's charter of rights to protect them, they must follow Canadian laws, too, he said. "If you've got a beef . . . you go to court."

Liberal inaction on the native issue is only going to worsen the downturn in the provincial economy, Tory said.

"Nobody is going to invest in a province where there's a complete breakdown in the rule of law."

It's true. Why would anybody want to do business in a province where the provincial and municipal governments break the law. They 'approve' development without proper agreements in place, and then leave the developers hanging out to dry when confrontations occur. Ontario is shooting itself in the foot.

There's 590 companies in the Grand Valley construction association, across central Ontario from Owen Sound through Kitchener and Cambridge to Brantford. The employ at least 20,000, George said.

Then the bosses better get consulting with Six Nations. Silly of them to just go ahead without proper legal agreements in place, risking all those people's livelihoods. After all, THE LAW IS THE LAW!

kswayze@therecord.com

Monday, July 14, 2008

Duty to Consult: Six Nations, Brantford Update Tuesday July 15 2008

The Kingspan construction site in northwest Brantford was quiet this morning following Monday’s arrest of a native protester.

About a dozen natives were outside the site today. The gate was locked and no construction was taking place. And... A man from Ohsweken has been released on a recognizance after he blocked a cement truck and resisted arrest at a Six Nations protest. 38 year old Dwayne Scott Maracle is charged with assault, resisting arrest, obstructing police, and mischief. The protest was at a construction site on Fen Ridge Court in Brantford, escalating when a protestor punched a police officer in the face. That man is still being sought for assaulting an officer... Background Six Nations has 29 land claims for "Aboriginal Title" as well as "Aboriginal Rights"throughout in the Haldimand Tract, including much of Brantford. Since the province of Ontario refuses to consult with Six Nations prior to issuing development permits for this land, Six Nations has repeatedly protested and shut down developments in Brantford, but some companies have continued trying to access the sites. Tonight Six Nations people are camped on the site, so there will be no further machines or work on the site. That's the plan. The City of Brantford recently applied for a permanent injunction against the protests, and was granted a temporary injunction only. Brantford Police tried to enforce that temporary injunction today, and failed to remove the Six Nations protesters, who now say they will stay on the site to ensure that no development occurs without consultation and agreement with them. It is the Crown's responsibility, the province. (but see below) Recently, a decision came down from the Ontario Court of Appeal on very similar situations. Relevant excerpts: Canada: Frontenac Ventures Corporation v. Ardoch Algonquin First Nation; Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation
14 July 2008
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=63390&login=true

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Aboriginal Issues, July 2008

On July 7, 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal released two decisions related to sentencing of aboriginal protestors for contempt for breaching injunctions aimed at preventing aboriginal protests. Although the issue before the Court of Appeal in these decisions was the appropriate sentence for contempt of court, the court made several important comments about the duty to negotiate in the context of aboriginal protests. Most significantly, the Court of Appeal referred to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the duty to negotiate, and found that whenever the interests of First Nations collide with private interests, every effort should be made to reconcile the private and aboriginal interests through consultation, negotiation and accommodation in a genuine attempt to resolve the conflicting interests. Such is the case even if the affected aboriginal communities choose not to fully participate in the injunction or legal proceedings.

The court considered arguments that had been made before it about the importance of the rule of law in Canada. The court adopted comments it had previously made in Henco Industries Limited v. Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council, in particular finding that the rule of law had several dimensions, one of which was the reconciliation of aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests through negotiation. The court expressed the opinion that when a court is asked by a private party to grant an injunction which may have an adverse impact on an asserted aboriginal or treaty right protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, "such cases demanded careful and sensitive balancing of many important interests in accessing whether to grant the requested injunction and on what terms".

The court went on to explain how these interests are to be effectively balanced. The court stated that the clear answer could be found in the last 20 years of jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada and in particular the requirement for consultation, negotiation, accommodation and ultimately reconciliation of aboriginal rights and other important, but at times conflicting, interests. The court cited the long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with R. v. Sparrow, including Haida Nations v. British Columbia (Minister of Forest), Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Heritage). The court found that this clear line of jurisprudence required that where constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are asserted, "injunctions sought by private parties to protect their interests should only be granted where every effort has been made by the court to encourage consultation, negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation among the competing rights and interests". The Court of Appeal cautioned in particular that if the injunction is intended to create a "protest free zone" for contentious private activity that impacts upon an asserted aboriginal right, the court must be extremely careful to ensure that the duty to consult with the First Nation has been fully and faithfully discharged and that every effort had been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution.

...

The Court of Appeal made a clear statement in Frontenac that it would no longer be acceptable for private parties to seek injunctions as a first response to prevent protest action by First Nations with legitimate aboriginal rights or land claims.

... The Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's established jurisprudence and held that there is a duty on the Crown, as well as private parties, to negotiate with indigenous communities in order to resolve conflicting interests. Following these decisions, it will be increasingly important for private stakeholders in Ontario with an interest in property over which an aboriginal rights claim has been asserted to be cognizant of, and sensitive to, those indigenous interests.

Six Nations, Brantford: Protester arrested at northwest construction site

Posted By John Paul Zronik

Six Nations protesters promised a full-fledged land occupation in Brantford following the arrest of a native protester by city police on Monday. "They're going to have one hell of a fight now," said Steve Powless, who spoke on behalf of the protesters. "This is going to be Caledonia Part 2. They don't understand what they're in for." Police made the arrest near a site on Fen Ridge Court in the city's northwest business park, where Kingspan Insulation is in the process of constructing a new headquarters and warehouse facility. Six Nations protesters say the land is under claim. The chain of events leading to Monday's arrest began at about 8:30 a.m., when two concrete trucks carrying loads to the Kingspan site were blocked by protesters. The trucks left, but returned a second time at about 9:45 a.m. in an attempt to get on the site. When a protester again attempted to block the trucks, he was confronted by police. A struggle took place and the man was later arrested and charged with assaulting police with intent to resist arrest and obstructing a police officer. The man's identity has yet to be determined. In a media release, city police said officers were attempting to facilitate access of the two trucks to the Kingspan site when one protester disobeyed officers' direction and stood in front of one of the trucks. When officers moved in to arrest the protester, he punched an officer in the face, police said.

Posted By Derek McElveny, chief of police

Posted 8 mins ago
"We are extremely disappointed that the peace was not kept during the protest today. Our officers were performing the duties that they are sworn to perform; to keep the peace, protect the public and enforce the laws. Our police service has a duty and responsibility to enforce court orders and, until today, our continued professionalism has garnered mutual respect that has resulted in peaceful protests. Today, the actions of a few protestors resulted in two of our officers being assaulted and other persons being threatened. The Brantford Police Service expects that any protest conducted in Brantford by any group is done so in a peaceful manner that complies with the laws of Canada and orders issued by our courts. Community, Provincial and Federal leaders are encouraged to exert their influence over their respective members to ensure the safety of our community is preserved and these land claim issues are resolved peacefully and expeditiously. The Brantford Police Service should not be perceived to be a solution to these long standing and complex land claim issues. Long term and long lasting resolutions to these claims can only be achieved through meaningful negotiations by the various levels of government and Six Nations Community Leaders who have the authority and will to resolve them. "– Derek McElveny, Chief of Police, Brantford Police Service

Peace returns to Kingspan site following native's arrest

Updated 1 hour ago

All was quiet at the Kingspan site this afternoon. At about 9 a.m., police arrested a native who blocked a cement truck from entering the constructon site in northwest Brantford. Two hours later, workers and equipment left without entering the site. At about noon, police removed barriers they had put up on roads to keep the public away from the site.
___
I expect that's it for that construction site. I doubt the developer will make any further attempts to get on the site. I certainly hope not. That would be just foolish. Canadians abhor violence in the streets above all else, and to a fault. "They're going to have one hell of a fight now," said Steve Powless, who spoke on behalf of the protesters. "This is going to be Caledonia Part 2. They don't understand what they're in for."
___
I just don't think they are leaving until somebody consults with them about this development. It seems to conflict with their plans, and their rights. And clearly SOMEbody has a legal "duty to consult" with them. It's Ontario's response we are waiting for. So far Ontario has only interfered with negotiations by telling developers not to negotiate with Six Nations. That's why people are getting hurt in Brantford today. How does that fulfill the Crown's Duty to Consult? How does that attract business to Ontario? It is interesting that these Judges told "private parties" their "duty ... to negotiate". This hasn't been spelled out before, though it's always indicated that "private parties" must play a role. would no longer be acceptable for private parties to seek injunctions as a first response

there is a duty on the Crown, as well as private parties, to negotiate with indigenous communities in order to resolve conflicting interests.

Following these decisions, it will be increasingly important for private stakeholders in Ontario with an interest in property ... to be cognizant of, and sensitive to, those indigenous interests.

That means if private companies follow the court's order, they have to disobey Premier McGuinty, who told them not to "consult, and accommodate" Six Nations interests.

I wonder which way they will go tomorrow morning?

Will Kingspan and Ontario and Brantford consult with Six Nations and accommodate their legitimate interests in the land?

Because it is pretty obvious that every effort HAS NOT BEEN "exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution".

In fact, no one has even talked to Six Nations Confederacy about their legitimate interests in that land.

KINGSPAN IS TOO DAMN BUSY TRYING TO RAM THEIR CEMENT TRUCKS THROUGH THE PEOPLE LINE!!!

I expect it was a youth they confronted. They always run fastest to stop the trucks.

No more of that tomorrow, KINGSPAN. Tomorrow you send the big cheeses to negotiate civilly, like the judges say. Talk civilly with the Elders. Don't attack the youth. Ever again. Canadians abhor violence against young people in the streets, by KINGSPAN thugs hiding in big trucks.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Duty to Consult: Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Brantford, Ardoch Algonquins, New Brunswick

We/Canada brags about its bargain basement selloff of resources - Best in return on investment to the shareholder - but all Canadian land 'assets' are overvalued, because they are not acknowledged to be encumbered by Indigenous Peoples' rights and titles. We haven't paid our debts and obligations to Indigenous Peoples for the right to share the land we call Canada, our right to be here. That's why our governments are selling off resources so cheap and so fast these days: Trying to outrun justice. Because soon they will be stopped enough times by direct or court action that they will be forced to implement Constitutional law through legislation:
Recent case law from the Supreme Court of Canada (Haida and Taku) has confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, and if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.
A say in development and a share in revenues on traditional Indigenous land. And then the price of doing business in Canada goes up.
EXAMPLE: Union of BC Chiefs

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs say Province wilfully mislead or withheld information about BCRail

Re: Proposed merger of BC Rail with CN Rail
“Within the rail industry, CN has moved from worst to first. We're now the best railroad in North America. Best in service. Best in operating efficiency. Best in safety. Best in return on investment to the shareholder.” (E. Hunter Harrison, President and CEO) There has been no consultation with Indigenous Peoples. Instead, the province has acted in bad faith by keeping the details of this Agreement secret from Indigenous Peoples. ... The constitutional rights of Indigenous Peoples must be addressed. In the absence of evidence of consultation this transaction cannot be approved. There has been no consultation; Instead, the province of B.C. willfully mislead and lied to Indigenous Peoples about this transaction. The Competition Bureau must be mindful of existing constitutional rights and consider the privatization deal from the perspective of the impact that it will have on Aboriginal Title and Rights. Absent proof of government’s fulfillment of its legal obligations to Indigenous Peoples, this merger (transfer) cannot be approved. ... Failure to act in a timely and fair manner to resolve matters satisfactory to Indigenous Nations may attract less patient responses than protracted litigation, including direct action. ... Yours truly, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Chief Stewart Phillip President
EXAMPLE: Brantford
Brant Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand should be taking his anger over development protests in Brantford to his provincial Liberal cousins at Queen's Park. While our federal government takes responsibility for helping settle land claims, the province is clearly responsible for both policing and development issues, which includes the issue of licensing permits. That is why Ontario is at the negotiation table, because the province knows they have an integral responsibility in helping settle these long-standing development issues between Six Nations and neighbouring municipalities. In just 2 1 /2 years, our Conservative government has tabled two significant offers to Six Nations leadership, who are currently reviewing our $26 million offer to settle the Welland Canal portion of their claim. Our federal negotiators have been working extremely hard to settle this claim and have attended more than 100 meetings. We remain committed to resolving these issues in a manner that is not only fair for Six Nations members but is also fair for the non- Aboriginal community as well. Chuck Strahl Minister of Indian Affairs Ottawa Show respect to Six Nations I agree with Tuesday's editorial, "Not a step forward," that "respect is a two-way street. But you proceed to say that it's only Six Nations who are being disrespectful. You suggest that we should sit back and allow development to proceed while things progress in the courts and at the interminable negotiating table. The assumption underlying your editorial is, of course, that any native claims to the properties in question were rightfully extinguished years ago and that the properties in question are rightfully deeded to you and yours. If you assumed that the natives might be right, that they have a legitimate claim to the lands, that the Haldimand Deed is the last clear title to the lands in question, then natives have every right to stop all development within their territory to allow you an opportunity to demonstrate your claims to the land -- claims which cannot be substantiated, as there has not been a legitimate surrender by the Six Nations. Your deeds and titles were issued under false pretenses. And therefore you should be required to demonstrate a legitimate claim. All development should stop immediately until your claims have been settled and Six Nations approves of the individual development projects. If you were as respectful as you suggest, perhaps you might consult with us and negotiate in good faith. Or insist that your representatives do so. Marilyn Maracle Ohsweken
EXAMPLE: Ardoch Algonquins

Reid has argued that the Government of Ontario had a duty to consult the Ardoch Algonquins before accepting the Frontenac Ventures mining claims under the Ontario Mining Act because the land in question is part of a land claim.

Later Justice MacPherson asked the question, “What then are the unique systemic or background factors that played a part in bringing the AAFN and two of its leaders before the courts to be sentenced for contempt? The first background factor is that there is an existing land claim negotiation between the Algonquin Nation and Ontario.”

“ What Frontenac Ventures wants to do on Crown land - staking and exploration - is legal under the Mining Act. However, the appellants' response, although in contempt of two court orders, is grounded, at a minimum, in a respectable interpretation of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and several recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

___

Thus, the sentences of the lower court were overturned. The implication of this for Indigenous rights throughout Ontario, like Six Nations, is that 'contempt' of injunctions imposed by the low courts will not stand up through the scrutiny of the high courts, because the actions of Indigenous Peoples in reclaiming their land or in claiming Aboriginal rights on the land, are grounded in the Constitution and those rights must be respected. In the case of the developments in Brantford, Minister Chuck Strahl has finally stepped up and pointed the finger in the correct direction: the province is clearly responsible for ... development issues, which includes the issue of licensing permits. Ontario is responsible for consulting with Six Nations
Recent case law from the Supreme Court of Canada (Haida and Taku) has confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, and if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.
"Conduct" like ... issuing development permits for land in Brantford where Six Nations clearly hold Aboriginal rights. The Haldimand Proclamation is deemed valid, and thus any land in the Haldimand Tract is subject to the Crown's "Duty to Consult".
Ontario is responsible. And British Columbia is responsible. And New Brunswick is responsible. http://grannyrantson.blogspot.com/2008/07/rights-of-indigenous-peoples-crowns.html All of the provinces are responsible for their "conduct that might adversely affect" Aboriginal rights and titles.
My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples.
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Peace.

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'.