2498 Chiefswood Road  •  P.O. Box 5000 Ohsweken ON  •  N0A 1M0                           Home     |      Contact Us    |     Privacy   Litigation Inadequacy of Crown Canada's Claim Policy and Process   Six Nations of the Grand River v. Canada and Ontario   Amended Statement of Claim - March 7, 1995   Table of Litigation Process   Litigation Chronology Litigation - Inadequacy of Crown Canada’s Claims Policy and Process •   The Federal Claims Policy was developed unilaterally and without substantive consultation or consent of the First Nations. •   The Claims Policy ignores the very instruments whereby the federal government claims to have obtained title to our lands and resources - the Treaties. •   The Policy is based on the false assumption that First Nations' titles to their lands were extinguished by treaties. This is clearly wrong and must be corrected. •   First Nations have previously had only one process - specific claims - by which they could address their rights and grievances. The only other alternative is litigation in the Canadian courts of law, which is really no alternative. The Haldimand Treaty of 1784 Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in consideration of the early attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians and of the loss of their settlement which they thereby sustained - that a ...   View More Return to Home Page Litigation - Inadequacy of Crown Canada’s Claims Policy and Process The Specific Claims Policy is based on the false assumption that First Nations’ titles to their lands were extinguished by treaties. When dealing with “land claims”, the burden of proof of legal title or interest in First Nations lands should rest with Canada. Canada and First Nations must work together to agree on a standard for legal certainty. The following points are criticisms by First Nations of the existing Federal Specific Claims Policy and its Process: •   creates an arbitrary distinction between comprehensive claims and specific claims; •   does not provide a forum for First Nations to negotiate on a government to government basis, as full and equal parties to deal with the full range of First Nations treaty and aboriginal rights; •   developed unilaterally and without substantive consultation or consent of the First Nations; •   not based on standards of fairness and equity; •   conflict of interest is created when the Department of Indian Affairs, who makes the funding decisions, also decides the validity and settlement value of any claim. i.e. First Nations have limited financial resources to develop their land claims and it is currently provided by the federal government in the form of a loan once the claims are accepted for negotiation; •   Crown does not act in the best interests of the First Nations; •   First Nations are to present the legal basis for a claim even though there is no such reciprocal duty on the part of the Crown to report back on the claim; •   not uniformly applied across Canada; •   validity of the claim rests with the Department of Justices’ decisions; •   the entire process is unreasonably slow and can take several years just to validate a claim; •   further delays when negotiating for compensation; •   resources are not protected in the process; •   First Nations have had only the specific claims process to address their rights and grievances; and •   Administrative resolution could not be achieved and negotiations are most often found unacceptable with a “take it or leave it” scenario, therefore lack of results, leads to litigation.
	© 2008 Six Nations Council. All rights reserved. Six Nations Lands and Resources is a Department of the Six Nations Council