Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 9. Credibility of the Experts 135on perceptions of these particular Ojibway. I have found that these particular Ojibway were quitedifferent from the other Aboriginal signatories of the other numbered treaties.[645] I do not accept the submission of counsel for Ontario that Chartrand's opinions are morebalanced than Lovisek's.[646] Overall he impressed me as less objective than Lovisek. At times, he appeared to bestraining to support Ontario's position in this litigation. I shall provide a few examples giving riseto this impression. I could have given more.[647] On May 23, 2006, in ordering Ontario to pay the costs of this trial of two issues on apartial indemnity basis, in advance, Spies J. referred to the evidence of Chartrand, at paragraphs172-175 as follows:[172] Counsel for the MNR argues however, that the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Chartrandcontradicts the plaintiffs' position. He submits that the Ojibway who negotiated Treaty 3 did not haveany detailed knowledge of a Canadian Constitutional distinction between federal and provincialauthorities, and any such distinction was not, to them, a meaningful aspect of the treaty. Thedefendants rely on his evidence from his affidavit and his statement:that "[i]t is implausible that the Ojibway who negotiated Treaty 3 held any detailedknowledge of a Canadian Constitutional distinction between Dominion and Provincialauthorities, or that any such distinction was to them a meaningful aspect of the Treaty". Intheir eyes, and in the eyes of the Commissioners, the Treaty was with the Queen.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[173] Dr. Chartrand was examined and in re-examination stated in part, as follows:1202. Q. … Does it remain your view25 that in the conception of the aboriginals negotiating for1 and ultimately signing Treaty 3 they were dealing with the2 Crown -- …3 …the Queen as a person and has what's4 gone on or has anything you've seen in the last day5 altered that view?6 A. No. And I would base that answer on7 the preponderance of references to the Queen and to the8 treaty being made between the Queen and the Ojibway that9 are found in records detailing verbatim or near-verbatim10 statements by the participants as well as in, for example,11 the [1869] list of demands.…13 THE DEPONENT: …20 I do not dispute any contention, in fact,21 there is very good evidence in the documentary record to22 the effect that the Ojibway understood that they were23 dealing with individuals who belonged to a central24 government that was established at a place called Ottawa.25 On the other hand, again, the totality of1 explanations given to the Ojibway indicate that that2 government had at its ultimate head and source of3 authority the Queen.[174] This evidence clearly qualifies the evidence in Dr. Chartrand's affidavit. Obviously ifOntario was not privy to the negotiations, nor referred to in the negotiations, it is too simplistic to say