Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources

Part 18. Final Observations 303[1643] The 1891 Legislation was intended to apply only to the Disputed Territory, the portion ofthe Treaty 3 territory affected by St. Catherine's Milling. The 1891 Legislation was not intendedto apply, and did not apply, to areas unaffected by St. Catherine's Milling, such as those at issuehere. There is no "evidence of a clear and plain intention on the part of the government toextinguish treaty rights" (Badger at para. 41) either by the 1891 or the 1912 Legislation.[1644] The 1912 events did not alter Treaty 3 Harvesting Rights in Keewatin.Implications of This Decision[1645] While Canada does not have title to land in Ontario, Canada has jurisdiction under s.91(24) and the Treaty to limit Treaty Harvesting Rights. Ontario does not. This decision does notput Ontario behind the Constitutional baseline but at it – precisely as the Commissionersintended in 1873. Reference to Canada in the Harvesting Clause was not colourable butConstitutional.2011 ONSC 4801 (CanLII)[1646] The Honour of the Crown must be fulfilled on a continuing basis. The Commissionerspromised to implement and enforce Treaty Rights. In light of the findings of fact and the othermatters outlined in these Reasons, they should now "get on with performance" of theirobligations.19. DISPOSITION[1647] The answer to Question One is No.[1648] The answer to Question Two is No.[1649] Counsel have asked to make submissions before any further order is made.[1650] I am prepared to hear further submissions immediately on the content of the formal orderto be issued herein.[1651] Counsel should immediately make arrangements for a conference call to discuss anymatters that need to be addressed in the immediate future.Released: August 16, 2011______________________________M.A. SANDERSON J.