MINI-HEARING – January 27, 2017

mini-hearing-poster

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Judge directs mini-hearing

The Honourable Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered there to be a “mini-trial” with representative Plaintiff Marcia Brown to present oral evidence “on the following narrow issue”:

If Canada had consulted with Indian Bands (as per s. 2(2) of the 1965 Agreement) what ideas or advice would have been provided that could have prevented the Indian children who had been removed and placed in non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive homes from losing their Aboriginal identity?

The date of the hearing has not been fixed, but the Judge has indicated that it should take place the second half of January or early February and that His Honour’s decision on the summary judgment motion will follow soon thereafter.

If you wish to read the Judge’s decision about the mini-hearing, click here.

If you intend on coming to the mini-hearing, click here.

This is an opportunity to tell Canada, whose lawyers say our country owes no obligation whatsoever to protect the cultural identity of its First Nations peoples, what it could have done if it cared to listen and if its purpose was other than assimilation, if not extermination, of aboriginal identity.

We will post the date of the mini-hearing as soon as it is known.

If you would like to receive a copy of a season’s greeting letter we recently sent to the Honourable Prime Minister and other persons concerned about human rights, click here.

If you want an electronic image of the poster that we sent to the Honourable Prime Minister, click here.

Stay tuned.

Meegwetch

Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

CANADA’S CHRISTMAS GIFT TO FIRST NATIONS CHILDREN

“Ho, ho, ho, it’s Santa Canada
I’m here to gollop up Indian kids
Best-interests-of-the-child-genocide,
Ha ha ha, little ones born on the wrong side”

CANADA’S DUTY TO FIRST NATIONS DOES NOT INCLUDE PROTECTION OF THEIR IDENTITY

Attorney General and Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybold, through her counsel, appears to assert that  when Canada entered into treaties with its First Nations peoples, those treaties had – and continue to have- nothing to do with the protection of indigenous cultures, religion, traditions, customs or language. As her lawyers argued in Court on December 2, 2016 – Courtroom #4 at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Canada has no common law duty to protect its First Nations peoples’ unique cultural identity.

At least, Brown v Canada clarifies what we have suspected from the beginning of our nation to nation relationship. Go figure: a First Nations Minister of Justice and Attorney General is the bearer of the news.

If you have any doubt about our reporting what was said on December 2, 2016 by our Attorney General Wilson-Raybold, through her counsel, consider reading the excerpt, set out below, taken from the transcript of the November 17, 2016 cross-examination in Brown v Canada, the case about the alleged 16,000 survivors of an attempted cultural genocide. The person asking the questions is Owen Young, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, the Defendant in the case. The person being questioned is Dr. Janet Armstrong, who prepared a report that the representative Plaintiff, Marcia Brown, filed as expert evidence.

Here is the excerpt (Also found at page 56 questions 187-189):


Q.    But I would suggest to

you that from the Crown’s perspective or the

Commissioners’s perspective at the time, the

ability to continue to support themselves, to have

the signatories support themselves through

hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering was

really largely an economic consideration?  That

is, they didn’t want to have the signatories

dependent on the public purse for support, they

wanted to ensure that they could continue to

support themselves from the land through their

traditional means?

A.    I believe there is more

to it.  I believe the Treaty Commissioners

understood the significance of that assurance to

the Aboriginal people.  They knew that that was

critical for the Aboriginal people.

Q.    Yes.  But in terms —

A.    It wasn’t just economic

consideration.

Q.    But in terms of their own

purposes, we are talking a different perspective

here.  Their own purposes were largely economic,

isn’t that fair?  That’s, in fact, the treaty is

an economic treaty from the Crown’s perspective?

A.    I’d have to really think

about that.  I can’t say yes or no at the moment.

I think there is a lot more to it.  It’s not an

economic agreement.  It’s an agreement of

reliance, of peace and friendship, it’s part of a

long tradition of treaty making stemming from –

If you would like a copy of the entire transcript, click here.

If you agree with us, click here to join the petition to the Honourable Prime Minister to do right by the survivors of Canada’s attempted cultural genocide in the Sixties Scoop.

More than a tattoo, Honourable Prime Minister. How about coming clean with your agenda?

– Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The white privilege that Brown v Canada reveals

The CBC link below is about one of the lawyers representing Canada in the case. We are more inclined to see all of the lawyers and the judges as part of white privilege working to create the illusion of justice for all when the survivors of the Sixties Scoop are reminded time and time again that there is no fairness. Do you not remember when we were before the Ontario Divisional Court, as part of the appeals, and the Associate Chief Justice Cunningham asked our lawyer this question after the argument was completed:

What is the big deal about this case? You’re not complaining about sexual or physical abuse, so what is this about, really!

We wrote it down, what the Associate Chief Justice said. We wonder how Associate Chief Justice Cunningham would feel, if as a child, he was severed from his immediate family, his extended family, his community, his language, his religion, his customs, traditions and heritage, and his community was torn apart as some plan of assimilation, if not annihilation.

We are looking forward to the Court decision after 7 years of litigating with Owen Young and his colleagues, but we are not fooled by the tattoo adorned by the Prime Minister. No, we’re not anybody’s fools.

Read the full CBC article here: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/thunder-bay/owen-young-sixties-scoop-1.3882638

– Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Senator Murray Sinclair Speaks Out – Update on Sixties Scoop Journey – W A I T I N G

murray-sinclair

After 7 years of litigating with two different governments of Canada, each saying it has no responsibility for what happened to the survivors of the Sixties Scoop, a decision from a Court is now in the making.

The Honourable Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard final argument in Courtroom #4 at Osgoode Hall in Toronto on December 1st and December 2nd, 2016.

At the conclusion, the Honourable Judge stated that he hoped to have his decision by mid-late January, 2017.

It looks like the judge can find Canada responsible for the liability that the representative Plaintiff Marcia Brown argues has to do with Canada’s historic failure to consult with Ontario’s 111 Bands at the time of the 1965 Canada-Ontario Agreement. Or, the judge can order a “mini-hearing” on some particular aspect where the Judge is looking for further evidence, or the Plaintiff’s motion can be dismissed, in which case the matter will proceed to trial. (Canada is asking again of the Court to dismiss the entire action, not just the motion for a summary judgment on liability).

We have asked some legal authorities as to how long it will take for this issue of liability to be finally determined if there are appeals from the judge’s decision, and if those appeals end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. The legal authorities we asked tell us the additional time may be anywhere from 2-5 years of further court proceedings.

If it turns out to be 5 years, that will mean 15 years that Marcia Brown and her lawyer, Jeffery Wilson have been at this case, and that includes 12 years in litigation.

If you haven’t signed the petition to the Honourable Prime Minister, please consider doing so now by clicking here.

WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT. We will post the news of the decision and its contents as soon as we hear.

Meegwetch

Steering Committee, Ontario Sixties Scoop Claim

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Summary judgment hearing continues this week

Summary judgment hearing continues Thursday, December 1st, 2016, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Courtroom #4 at 10:00 a.m.

Everyone and anyone interested is invited to attend the continuation of Brown v Canada before the Honourable Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Come earlier than 10:00 a.m. as anyone entering the historic Osgoode Hall courthouse must clear security.

If you want to read about the case of the 16,000 surviving children of Ontario’s Sixties Scoop, click here to read their Factum.

If you want to read about why and how Canada is denying any responsibility for what happened, click here to read the Crown’s Factum.

If you want to read about the reply to Canada’s argument put forward by the representative Plaintiff, Marcia Brown, click here to read a copy.

“Factum” means the written synopsis of the oral argument that the Judge reads before hearing from the lawyers. Reading the documents may make listening to the oral submissions of the lawyers more interesting.

It has been a long journey, but as our lawyer said in Court last August 23rd, “WE MUST NEVER LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN”. (He said it in Algonquin.)

We hope to see you there, and thank you for your support from day one.

– Ontario Sixties Scoop Steering Committee

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Summary judgement resumes December 1, 2016

Summary judgment hearing resumes on December 1st at 10:00 a.m. at Osgoode Hall, before the Honourable Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Whatever Minister Carolyn Bennett said to the press and public about wanting to settle, the Defendant Canada’s legal team will be arguing against the recognition of any legal responsibility for the harm caused to the alleged 16,000 children of the Ontario Sixties Scoop. The Plaintiff’s lawyers will be able to provide reply, if necessary, on December 2nd.

Canada will not be filing its Factum (written legal argument) until November 24th. Please email us if you would like to receive a copy of Canada’s Factum, and let us know if you would also like a copy of the Plaintiff Marcia Reply Factum, once and if, filed.

The hearing is open to the public. We will post the courtroom information when we have it.

Meegwetch

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments