Backgrounder

The events behind the Blood Tribe/Kainaiwa claim began in 1887 with the signing of Treaty 7 in southwest Alberta.

Within three years of the signing, the Blood Tribe/Kainaiwa was not satisfied with the reserve land it had been granted, and government officials surveyed land for a new reserve. The Indian Claims Commission's review of government correspondence showed that the land under consideration was home to two non-Indian squatters and was known by government to contain coal.

One squatter, David Akers, had built Fort Whoop Up in 1872 as a trading post. In 1883, the federal government decided to amend Treaty 7 to exclude Akers's land, described in the survey as a "north-east" quarter section, rather than compensate Akers for the cost of moving his lucrative trading business. However, a clerical error substituted "north-east" for "north-west," and Akers's land and Fort Whoop Up were actually included in the reserve land.

The error came to light in 1886 after Akers applied for a patent on these and other lands. The federal government attempted to correct the error, offering to exchange Akers's land on the Blood reserve for vacant Crown land.

When Akers refused, the Department of Indian Affairs had the Blood Chief sign an affidavit in 1889 that surrendered the land. No evidence of any compensation for the surrender, nor of any surrender vote was presented to the Commission. Nor was there any evidence that the Crown had sought to protect the First Nation's rights to the mineral resources on the land in question. Finally, in 1970, the department acquired the land and returned it to reserve status.

In 1995, the Blood Tribe/Kainaiwa submitted a claim, alleging that the government had broken its fiduciary, or trust, obligation to the First Nation.

According to the Blood Tribe/Kainaiwa, the federal government breached its own regulations under the Indian Act regarding the proper surrender of reserve land by not holding a vote of all eligible male band members, and that the government used an "unconscionable bargain,""undue influence,""negligent misrepresentation," and "duress" to secure the land surrender. The First Nation also argued that the government should have taken steps to protect the mines and minerals on the land for the benefit of the First Nation.

After the launch of an inquiry into the claim by the Indian Claims Commission, the government agreed in April 1998 to negotiate a settlement.