Restoule v Canada is a legal case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that considers whether the Augmentation clause in the 1850 Robinson Treaties entitles the Anishinaabe to an increase in annuity payments.[1]
Justice Patricia Hennessy presided over the case, which featured the Anishinaabe First Nation as plaintiffs and the Attorneys General of Ontario and of Canada as defendants.[2] The case concerns the two Robinson treaties, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior treaty, focusing specifically on whether the Augmentation Clause within the treaties proscribes a cap on the annuities payable to the First Nation.[3]
The Anishinaabe argued there should be an increase to the annuity, while the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario argued that there should be a cap on the annuity.[4]
On December 21, 2018, Justice Patricia Hennessy declared that the Crown had a duty to increase the annuities in the Robinson treaties.[5] She determined that the Robinson treaties provide for an increase in the collective annuities and only caps the payment to individuals at $4.[6]
The case has been viewed as a step towards reconciliation.[7]
- ^ "Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701". www.dgwlaw.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
- ^ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
- ^ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701
- ^ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
- ^ "Case Brief: Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701". www.dgwlaw.ca. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
- ^ Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 7701.
- ^ "Historical lawsuit affirms Indigenous laws on par with Canada's". National Post. Retrieved 2020-11-05.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search