Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 9. Credibility of the Experts 134exclusive use. Chartrand's evidence was that the Ojibway generally hunted in the interior, awayfrom the Dawson Route.[638] As is evident later in these Reasons, I have accepted Lovisek's conclusion that Dawson'safter-Treaty comments are important.[639] Counsel for Ontario specifically criticized Lovisek's failure to mention comments madeby Dawson pre-1873 about positive agricultural prospects for the Treaty 3 area. Again, I notethat those projections related primarily to the Dawson Route area. Both the Ojibway and Canadaanticipated some agricultural development along the Rainy River. I also note that Dawson'scomments about development prospects in the area were generally perceived as rosier than most.I agree with Lovisek's evidence that Dawson was a promoter of the Route. In a Globe & Mailarticle "A letter from Fort Frances," dated July 11, 1872, written just before the 1872negotiations began, the reporter poked fun at Dawson, making puns about his "holy" road…I feel sure that every mosquito who has been turned out of doors by his parents or has failed to earna livelihood in other parts of the world, has emigrated to the Dawson Route……Mr. Simpson and the writer had together passed over this road in September last, and had thenwondered and speculated as to the probable condition of this so-called immigrant route, when thewinter's snow and the spring freshets had done their work upon it. The 'Cariboo Muskeg', that mileand half of corduroy undulating to the heavings of a quaking morass, will try their mettle, wethought, "Wait till that last six miles of sandy way through the tamarack swamp is tested by theordeal of water, and then we shall see a holy road to the North-west Angle."(Plaintiffs' Closing Argument, April 22, 2010, page 15 re Ex. 1, Vol 5, Tab 180)[640] In short, I reject Ontario's submission that Lovisek was generally not an objectivewitness.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[641] I note that in many important respects, Chartrand's evidence was consistent withLovisek's.[642] After hearing, comparing and weighing the evidence of the three ethno-historicalwitnesses, I am of the view that Lovisek was the most knowledgeable about the Treaty 3Ojibway. I have relied heavily upon her evidence.Chartrand[643] Chartrand impressed me generally as a knowledgeable witness. His evidence was inmany respects similar to Lovisek's.[644] After hearing all of his evidence and comparing it to Lovisek's, I am of the view thatalthough he was generally knowledgeable about Ojibway people, he had less depth of knowledgeand was less able to assist this Court with regard to the culture, ways, intention andunderstanding of these particular Ojibway than was Lovisek. Some of his conclusions were notspecifically based on his knowledge of these Ojibway or on their specific circumstances in 1873.For example, his evidence on "negative consciousness of condition" was not sufficiently based