Legal Pleadings
-
- Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.), aff
- The Chippewas make a claim that even though they may have surrendered the land in question they still retained aboriginal rights to the land.
-
- Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.), aff
- The Chippewas are arguing that a patent to land was achieved through fraud and bribery. It is claimed that the surrender was invalid and therefore is still reserve land.
-
- Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 3 C.N.L.R. iv (S.C.C.), aff
- The Chippewas make a claim that even though they may have surrendered the land in question they still retained aboriginal rights to the land. This is the factum from the township of Bosanquet.
-
- Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 56
- There are many issues in this case. Some of the particular arguments focus on whether a land surrender by the Chippewas was legal and perfected. The Chippewas seek damages.
-
- Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 56 (Ont. C.A.)
- The Chippewas are making a claim for land that was not surrendered to the Crown. The Chippewas are claiming a breach of fiduciary duty and seek damages for trespass on area that is now located in and around the city of Sarnia.
-
- Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 56 (Ont. C.A.);
- The Chippewas make a claim that even though they may have surrendered the land in question they still retained aboriginal rights to the land.
-
- Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 56 (Ont. C.A.);
- This is an appeal by Canada and Ontario regarding a ruling that found a Patent conveying Indian land was invalid. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the Patent was void ab initio and Aboriginal title and Treaty rights to the land were still in place. This document is the shorter version of refiled factum of the cross-appellant Attorney General of Canada. The more lengthy version is Factum ID #346 - see the legal pleadings main page to bring up the Factum ID #.
-
- Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 56 (Ont. C.A.);
- This is an appeal by Canada and Ontario regarding a ruling that found a Patent conveying Indian land was invalid. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the Patent was void ab initio and Aboriginal title and Treaty rights to the land were still in place. This document is the more lengthy refiled factum of the appellant Attorney General of Canada. Factum ID #345 is the shorter document - see legal pleadings main page to bring up the Factum ID #.
-
- ChippewasChippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 1 C.N.L.R. 56 (Ont. C.A.); o
- The Chippewas make a claim that even though they may have surrendered the land in question they still retained aboriginal rights to the land.
-
- Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 8
- This case centres around the Mohawk Institute Residential School between 1922 and 1969. The question was whether there was a breach of fiduciary duties and care owed to the First Nations victims of the Residential School. Was there an identifiable class of plaintiffs and/or common issues of the child victims of this school.
-
- Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 3 C.N.L.R. 19 (S.C.C.)
- Intervener's memorandum regarding the validity of section 77(1) of the Indian Act. Question as to whether excluding non-resident members of the Batchewana Indian Band from voting on Band elections is a violation of Charter ss. 15 and 25. Also, an issue as to whether s 35(1) of the Constitution is being violated by excluding members from voting. This is the factum of the NWAC intervener.
-
- Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 3 C.N.L.R. 19 (S.C.C.)
- Intervener's memorandum regarding the validity of section 77(1) of the Indian Act. Question as to whether excluding non-resident members of the Batchewana Indian Band from voting on Band elections is a violation of Charter ss. 15 and 25. Also, an issue as to whether s 35(1) of the Constitution is being violated by excluding members from voting. This is the factum of the NWAC intervener.