Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 8. Analysis of Historical Evidence as it Relates to the Parties' Interests 131Q: Right. Morris here gives them no indication that the Queen's -- whether it's the Queen'sgovernment or the Queen in Right of Canada or whatever we ultimately want to label that thing inOttawa, that they won't be able to deal with the full scope of the Ojibway's problems, he neverexplains that to them, does he?A: His explanation, and it's the one consistent feature of the three different accounts, is that there's aunitary body.The Interests of Ontario[622] As mentioned earlier, by the time the Treaty was negotiated, the Commissioners knew ofthe Boundary Dispute between Ontario and Canada and that it would likely have to be litigated.[623] Ontario postponed negotiations with respect to the boundary until after a treaty wasconcluded with the Indians.[624] It did not participate in any of the Treaty 3 negotiations in 1871, 1872 or 1873.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)9. CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERTS[625] Obviously, my acceptance or rejection of any given piece of evidence relevant to anyissue depended on a comparison of that evidence with other evidence relevant to that issue,viewed in the overall context of the evidence as a whole. My reasons for accepting or rejectingspecific portions of the evidence are to be found elsewhere in these Reasons.[626] In this section, I am setting out my more general observations and conclusions withrespect to the overall credibility of the various experts.The Ethno-Historical Witnesses (Lovisek, Chartrand and Von Gernet)Lovisek[627] Early in the trial there were times when I found Lovisek's evidence to be difficult tofollow. I am now confident that my initial difficulties stemmed principally from my ownschooling in European concepts related to ownership of land and my reflexive assumptions basedon that knowledge, which led to my inability to immediately appreciate that counsel for Ontariohad formulated its case and focused its questions in its cross-examination of Lovisek based onfamiliar Euro-Canadian land concepts, especially relating to "ownership." Lovisek was trying torespond to counsel's questions based on her extensive knowledge of vastly different Ojibwayconcepts that did not directly relate to ownership or land per se.[628] Focusing on Euro-Canadian concepts about land ownership, counsel for Ontario in effectasked Lovisek to assume that the Harvesting Clause was all about Euro-Canadian concepts oflandowner's rights, including the assumption that the benefits of land ownership include theexclusive right to use the resources on that land to the fullest. Lovisek opined (and Chartrandagreed) that Euro-Canadian concepts of individual land ownership and of the purchase and saleof land were foreign to the Treaty 3 Ojibway.