Completed Inquiries – Reports Released
07/06/2007
Paul First Nation [Kapasiwin Townsite] – February 2007
In June 1996, the First Nation submitted a specific claim to Canada regarding the mismanagement of the sale of IR 133B. Canada accepted the claim for negotiation in July 1998, but the First Nation did not agree with the basis on which Canada was willing to negotiate compensation. In 2001, the First Nation requested that the Commission conduct an inquiry into which criteria should be applied to determine compensation. The First Nation also submitted a second, related claim in 2000 regarding the wrongful surrender of Kapasiwin townsite. Following an April 2002 planning conference, the parties agreed to adjourn the inquiry into the compensation criteria claim and await Canada’s findings on the Kapasiwin surrender claim, which was eventually rejected in July 2003. The First Nation then requested that the ICC conduct an inquiry into its compensation criteria claim. The issues relating to this claim were finalized by the parties in January 2004. Further documents were submitted by both the First Nation and Canada, and a community session was held in October 2004. Oral submissions were heard in May 2005 in Edmonton. The inquiry focused broadly on two central issues, the surrender of IR 133B and the mismanagement of this sale. The panel concluded that the surrender of IR 133B was valid, in that it met the terms of the Indian Act and that there was no breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown in the taking of the surrender. The panel found that there had been no failure on the part of the Crown to follow its own policy regarding surrenders, as there was no written policy in place at the time. The panel concluded that the Band had intended to surrender the mines and minerals, and that it had been well informed about the potential of the surrendered lands for use either as a resort community or as a railway station. The fact that a railway station was not built was not a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown. The panel also found that there was no breach of fiduciary duty by the Crown in its management of the lot sales between 1906 and 1912 and that it acted in what it reasonably concluded were the best interests of the Band in the management of the sale. Although the issue of compensation criteria was the initial basis of the inquiry, the panel declined to deal with it on the ground that there was insufficient evidence on which to do so. The Commission released a report on this inquiry in June 2007. To download the news release To download the report - PDF 
|
