|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Government says not responsible for past Crown actions in Six Nations land claim case
As the historic Six Nations land claim case against the Crown got underway this week at a Toronto court, both the provincial and federal government said in their opening submissions they are not responsible for what the Crown may have done with Six Nations’ lands within the Haldimand Tract.
The Crown’s defence attorney said while the Crown should not be immune from scrutiny the court should understand because Canada was not yet a country but a developing colony during the 1784 Haldimand Proclamation they were only working with what they had at the time.
The mammoth land claim case finally started on Oct. 5 under Justice Ira Parghi with lawyers for both Six Nations and the Crown in right of Canada and Ontario providing opening statements.
Six Nations of the Grand River says that the Crown failed to properly set aside, protect or manage the 950,000-acre Haldimand Tract under the 1784 Haldimand Proclamation.
Lawyers for the federal government said as the population grew in the colony, later Upper Canada and eventually, the Dominion of Canada (Confederation) in 1867, the British Crown had to negotiate land for settlers.
Crown lawyers argued they kicked squatters off the land and that Six Nations surrendered land to make way for agriculture, settlement and infrastructure.
The court heard that by the 1820s colonial governments began laying the groundwork for the reserve system and that by Confederation, Indigenous communities were administered through legislation regulating Indigenous lands and those measures culminated in the post-Confederation Indian Act regime which is still in effect to this day.
The relationship between the Crown and the eventual Indian Affairs department bore little resemblance to the Crown-Indigenous diplomatic relationship of 1784 when the Haldimand Proclamation was made, the court heard.
Crown lawyers argued that the Haldimand Proclamation was not a treaty and that it didn’t specify, with maps or surveys, the exact layout of the land grant.
Canada said the Haldimand Tract did not form Six Nations territory. Canada lawyers argued that Six Nations people were originally from what is now Upper New York State and Pennsylvania and that Anishinaabe people inhabited Ontario before the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784.
Lawyers also argued the Crown was not a party to the Dish With One Spoon treaty nor the Nanfan Treaty.
Canada says Six Nations was granted the Haldimand Tract through negotiations with Chief Joseph Brant in exchange for their allyship with the British during the American War of Independence but insisted that the Haldimand Proclamation was not a treaty.
Following the American Revolution, Britain sought replacement land for displaced Haudenosaunee from the United States.
Chief Joseph Brant met with Frederick Haldimand, a colonial administrator who served with the British Army during the Seven Years’ War and American Revolutionary War, the court heard.
Haldimand had originally proposed land near Kingston but Brant proposed a settlement in the Grand River Valley, court heard.
Crown lawyers argued the maps used during the negotiations were geographically incorrect.
The Haldimand Grant states land be granted six miles on either side of the Grand River from its mouth to its source.
Further, lawyers stated, the American Revolution had displaced thousands of loyalists, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.
Some Six Nations peoples remained in the states while others relocated to Tyendinaga, while others more came to the Grand River.
Crown lawyers said the Mississaugas of the Credit surrendered lands in 1784 to allow for the Haldimand Proclamation and Frederick Haldimand instructed officials to purchase land from Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.
Crown lawyers said the map “erroneously depicted wrong boundaries.”
When Upper Canada was created in 1791, the Crown didn’t know about the Haldimand Proclamation because it was in Joseph Brant’s possession, the court heard.
Another land grant called the Simcoe Patent spoke of six miles on either side of the Grand River, lawyers said, but didn’t mention the source of the Grand River.
Canada lawyers said both the patent and Haldimand Grant pre-date the modern-day reserve system and that therefore, the 1784 “instrument” (Haldimand Grant or Proclamation) “must be regarded in its own historical way separate from reserve system.”
Canada’s lawyer argued that Six Nations surrendered several parcels of Haldimand lands and wanted it invested for the care and maintenance of Six Nations people.
The lawyer also said the Crown couldn’t prevent squatters at first but that eventually some squatters were removed.
The lawyer also argued some chiefs executed land surrenders in the 1840s.
“Canada did not inherit the liability of the Crown,” Canada’s lawyers said and argued that Six Nations was paid for the surrenders.
Six Nations, the plaintiffs, tell the opposite story.
Ontario’s lawyer said in an opening statement that the province didn’t even exist as a legal entity at the time of the Haldimand Proclamation.
The case continues throughout the week and can be viewed via a livestream at the GREAT theatre starting at 9 a.m. for the remainder of the week.
Originally published in the Two Row Times, October 7, 2026 (Volume 14, Issue 8), page 1.
