News

2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | 1992

07/06/2007

Panel Recommends Paul First Nation's Claim Not Be Accepted for Negotiation

Ottawa (June 7, 2007) – In a report released today, a panel of the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) found that the Crown did not breach its lawful obligation in the surrender and sale of one of the reserves of the Paul First Nation, thus concluding the ICC’s inquiry into the Paul First Nation Kapasiwin Townsite claim.

The inquiry panel, composed of Commissioners Daniel J. Bellegarde (Chair), Alan C. Holman and Sheila G. Purdy, found that the surrender of Indian Reserve (IR) 133B was properly taken under the Indian Act, that there was no breach of the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the Band in the surrender or the subsequent management of the sales of the land between 1906 and 1912, and no evidence that the Crown acted against the best interests of the Paul First Nation.

The Paul Band had two reserves, IR 133A and the much smaller IR 133B, on the shores of White Whale Lake (now known as Wabamun Lake), a short distance from Edmonton, Alberta. In September 1906, members of the Paul Band voted to surrender IR 133B, used primarily as a fishing station, with the hope of attracting a summer resort community serviced by a railway. The railway company later chose not to build a station on the surrendered land, known later as the Kapasiwin Townsite. The land was subdivided into lots, some of which the Department of Indian Affairs sold at public auctions, but the resort development never materialized.

The chair of the panel, Commissioner Daniel J. Bellegarde, remarked: “The historical record shows that the Paul Band initiated discussions with the Crown on the advisability of a
surrender. Under the laws of the day, the land likely would have been expropriated for railway purposes, and both the Crown and the Band understood that the highest benefit could be attained if the Band surrendered the land for sale. Although the parties did not achieve the results that they had hoped for, this does not necessarily mean that the Crown breached its duty to the Band. We find that the Crown acted as a prudent, reasonable fiduciary.”

The panel also found that the Department of Indian Affairs had carried out all the steps it normally took in similar situations and did what it could to encourage the railway to build a station on the surrendered land. The fact that the station was not built did not mean a breach of the Crown’s duty; the location of the railway station was not a decision the department could make.

The Paul First Nation submitted a claim to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 1996, alleging mismanagement of the sales of the surrendered lands. This claim was accepted for negotiation in July 1998; however, negotiations broke down, and the First Nation asked the ICC to hold an inquiry into compensation criteria. The Commission agreed to conduct such an inquiry in October 2001.

In June 2000, the First Nation submitted another claim regarding the same lands, challenging the validity of the 1906 surrender. The Minister of Indian Affairs rejected that claim in July 2003. At the request of the First Nation, the ICC agreed to incorporate the surrender claim into the compensation criteria inquiry. The surrender claim became the focus of the parties’ arguments and the inquiry.

The ICC was established in 1991. Its mandate is: to inquire, at the request of a First Nation, into specific claims that have been rejected by the federal government, or accepted claims where the First Nation disputes the compensation criteria being considered; and to provide mediation services on consent of the parties at any stage of the claims process.

To download the backgrounder

To download the report - PDF