Court File No: _____________________

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

BETWEEN:

JIM DUROCHER, JACQUES CHARTIER, JOE DAIGNEAULT, JOHN

MONTGRAND, BERNICE SERIGHT, VIOLET HERMAN, NORMAN HANSEN,
CHARLIE SERIGHT, ROBERT WOODS, DENNIS SHATILLA, CECILE HANSEN,
RUBY COUILLONNEUR, LOUIS COUILLONNEUR, ANTOINETTE LAFLEUR,
DENNIS DAIGNEAULT, EPHREM GUETRE, MATHILDA WAGENAAR,
FLORENCE DAIGNEAULT, ALFRED JANVIER, JUDY JANVIER, WALTER
JANVIER, TOBY MONTGRAND, PAUL MONTGRAND, CARISSA MONTGRAND,
JASON JANVIER, JORDAN MONTGRAND,WILFRED HERMAN, KENNETH
ROTH, BRIAN MACDONALD, ERNEST MACDONALD, NAPOLEON CHARTIER,
ALEX MAURICE, BRENDA CHARTIER, RUSSELL CLARKE, ALICE CHARTIER,
DALE PETIT, GEORGE LALIBERTE, ALVIN CHARTIER, THERESE CHARTIER,
ROBERTA HANSON, LAWRENCE WERMINSKY, RONALD QUINTAL, STELLA
LAVALLEE, JUSTIN BOURQUE, FRED FRASER, SHIRLEY TREMBLAY, JACK
QUINTAL, MELVINA SCOVILLE, RON DONALD, MARY AGNES HERMAN,
RAUL MONTGRAND, A LA BAIE MÉTIS LOCAL #21 Inc., MICHEL VILLAGE
LOCAL #65, FORT MCKAY METIS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, WILLOW
LAKE METIS ASSOCIATION, CHARD METIS DENE Inc., METIS NATION OF
ALBERTA ASSOCIATION LOCAL COUNCIL #193 CONKLIN, METIS NATION OF
ALBERTA ASSOCIATION LOCAL COUNCIL 1949 OWL RIVER, ATHABASCA
LANDING METIS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, LAKELAND METIS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.

PLAINTIFFS

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN In Right of Canada, as represented by the Attorney

General of Canada.

DEFENDANT

1
 ************************************************************************
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
************************************************************************

TO THE DEFENDANT:

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the

Plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting for you are
required to prepare a statement of defence in Form 171B prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules
serve it on the plaintiffs’ solicitor, and file it, with proof of service, at a local office of the Court,
WITHIN 30 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are within Canada.

If you are served in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your
statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is sixty days.

Copies of the Federal Court Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court
and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at
Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, judgment may be given against you
in your absence and without further notice to you.

October 16, 2019.

Issued: ___________________________
Registry Officer

2
Address of local office: Address of Ottawa office:

Saskatoon Local Office Ottawa Local Office

Federal Court of Canada Federal Court of Canada
520 Spadina Crescent E. 90 Elgin Street, 1st Floor
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Ottawa, Ontario
S7K 3G7 K1A 0H9
Tel: (306) 975-4509. Tel: (613) 992-4238
Fax: (613) 952-3653
TDD: (613) 995-4640

TO: THE REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

AND TO:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Prairie Regional Office Saskatoon
Department of Justice Canada
Saskatoon Square
410 – 22nd Street East, Suite 410
Saskatoon, Sk
S7K 5T6
Tel: (306) 518-0788
Fax: (306) 975-4030

3
 CLAIM

THE PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff Jim Durocher is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the A la
Baie Métis Local 21 Inc of the historic Métis village of Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan.
Mr. Durocher is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906.
He is also a former President of the Métis Nation – Saskatchewan.

2. The Plaintiff Jacques Chartier is an Elder, a traditional resource user and a citizen of the
Métis Nation and resides in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan. Mr.
Chartier is a descendent of persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906 being
the son of Rosa Chartier, nee Caisse whose parents applied for money scrip on her behalf.

3. The Plaintiff Joe Daigneault is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the historic
Métis village of Beauval, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

4. The Plaintiff John Montgrand is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the village of
Turnor Lake, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at La
Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

5. The Plaintiff Bernice Seright, nee Durocher is an Elder and citizen of the Métis Nation
who resides in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows and is the daughter of Marie Cecile
Victoria Maurice whose parents applied for scrip on her behalf at Ile a la Crosse,
Saskatchewan in 1906.

6. The Plaintiff Violet Herman is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the
Métis Local at the Métis Hamlet of Michel Village, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

7. The Plaintiff Norman Hansen is an Elder and citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the
Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who
applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

8. The Plaintiff Charlie Seright is an Elder and citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the
Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is the son of Flora Fontaine whose
parents applied for scrip on her behalf at La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

9. The Plaintiff Robert Woods is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is a resident of the Métis
village of Buffalo Narrows, and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la
Crosse and La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

10. The Plaintiff Dennis Shatilla is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is a resident of the Métis
village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

4
11. The Plaintiff Cecile Hansen, nee Daigneault is an Elder and citizen of the Métis Nation
and is a resident of the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a
descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

12. The Plaintiff Ruby Couillonneur, is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Cole Bay, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at
Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

13. The Plaintiff Louis Couillonneur, a traditional resource user and Elder, is a citizen of the
Métis Nation and resides in the Métis village of Cole Bay, Saskatchewan and is a
descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

14. The Plaintiff Antoinette Lafleur, nee Caisse is a citizen and Elder of the Métis Nation and
resides in the historic Métis village of Beauval, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan in 1906.

15. The Plaintiff Dennis Daigneault is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Turnor Lake, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse and La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

16. The Plaintiff Ephrem Guetre is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Black Point, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip
at La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

17. The Plaintiff Mathilda Wagenaar, nee Guetre is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides
in the Métis village of Black Point, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who
applied for scrip at La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

18. The Plaintiff Florence Daigneault, nee Morin is an Elder and citizen of the Métis Nation
and resides in the Métis village of Turnor Lake, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse and La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

19. The Plaintiff Alfred Janvier is an Elder, traditional resource user and citizen of the Métis
Nation who resides in the Métis village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at La Loche, Saskatchewan in 1906.

20. The Plaintiff Judy Janvier is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis village
of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at La
Loche in 1906.

21. The Plaintiff Walter Janvier is traditional resource user and citizen of the Métis Nation
and resides in the Métis village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons
who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

5
22. The Plaintiff Toby Montgrand is a traditional resource user and resides in the Métis
village of Turnor Lake, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at La Loche in 1906.

23. The Plaintiff Paul Montgrand is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Turnor Lake, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at La Loche in 1906.

24. The Plaintiff Carrissa Montgrand is a traditional resource user and citizen of the Métis
Nation and resides in the Métis village of Turnor Lake, Saskatchewan and is a descendant
of persons who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

25. The Plaintiff Jason Janvier is a traditional resource user and is a citizen of the Métis
Nation and resides in the Métis village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

26. The Plaintiff Jordan Montgrand is a traditional resource user and a citizen of the Métis
Nation who resides in the Métis village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

27. The Plaintiff Wilfred Herman is a traditional resource user and a citizen of the Métis
Nation who resides in the Métis village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

28. The Plaintiff Kenneth Roth is a citizen of the Métis Nation who resides in the Métis
village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at
Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

29. The Plaintiff Brian MacDonald is a traditional resource user and a citizen of the Métis
Nation who resides in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a
descendant of persons who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

30. The Plaintiff Ernest MacDonald is an Elder, a traditional resource user and a citizen of the
Métis Nation who resides in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a
descendant of persons who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

31. The Plaintiff Napoleon Chartier is a traditional resource user and a citizen of the Métis
Nation who resides in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a
descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

32. The Plaintiff Alex Maurice is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the historic
Métis village of Beauval, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906. Plaintiff Maurice is the President of the Saskatchewan
Chapter of the National Aboriginal Veterans Association Inc.

6
33. The Plaintiff Brenda Chartier is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

34. The Plaintiff Russell Clarke Sr is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the historic
Métis village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at La Loche in 1906.

35. The Plaintiff Alice Chartier is an Elder and citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the
Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan. Ms. Chartier is a descendent of persons
who applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906 being the daughter of Rosa Chartier, nee
Caisse whose parents applied for money scrip on her behalf.

36. The Plaintiff Dale Petit is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the historic Métis
village of La Loche, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at
Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

37. The Plaintiff George Laliberte is an Elder and traditional resource user and a citizen of the
Métis Nation who resides in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan. Mr.
Laliberte is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at La Loche river in 1906 being
the son of Robert Laliberte whose parents applied for scrip on his behalf.

38. The Plaintiff Alvin Chartier is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

39. The Plaintiff Therese Chartier nee MacDonald is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides
in the Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons
who applied for scrip at La Loche in 1906.

40. The Plaintiff Roberta Hanson is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the Métis
village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who applied for
scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

41. The Plaintiff Lawrence Werminsky is a citizen of the Métis Nation and resides in the
Métis village of Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan and is a descendant of persons who
applied for scrip at Ile a la Crosse in 1906.

42. The Plaintiff Ronald Quintal is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the
Fort McKay Metis Community Association of the historic Métis village of Fort McKay,
Alberta. Mr. Quintal is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Lac la Biche.

43. The Plaintiff Stella Lavallee is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the
Willow Lake Metis Association of the historic Métis village of Anzac, Alberta. Ms.
Lavallee is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Fort Chipewyan and Lac la
Biche.

7
44. The Plaintiff Justin Bourque is a traditional resource user and a citizen of the Métis Nation
and is the Vice President of the Willow Lake Metis Association of the historic Métis
village of Anzac, Alberta. Mr. Bourque is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip
at Lac la Biche.

45. The Plaintiff Fred (Jumbo) Fraser is an elder and a citizen of the Métis Nation who resides
in the historic Métis village of Fort Chipewyan, Alberta and is a descendant of persons
who applied for scrip at Fort Chipewyan.

46. The Plaintiff Shirley Trembley is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the
Metis Nation of Alberta Local Council #193 Conklin of the historic Métis village of
Conklin, Alberta. Ms. Trembley is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Lac la
Biche

47. The Plaintiff Jack Quintal is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the Metis
Nation of Alberta Local Council 1949 Owl River near the historic Métis village of Lac la
Biche, Alberta. Mr. Quintal is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Lac la
Biche.

48. The Plaintiff Melvina Scoville is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the
Metis Nation of Alberta Lakeland Metis Community Association Local Council 1909 of
the historic Métis village of Lac la Biche, Alberta. Ms. Scoville is a descendant of
persons who applied for scrip at Lac la Biche

49. The Plaintiff Ron Donald is an Elder and a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President
of the Athabasca Metis Community Association near the historic Métis village of
Athabasca, Alberta. Mr. Donald is a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Lac la
Biche.

50. The Plaintiff Mary Agnes Herman is an elder and a citizen of the Métis Nation who
resides in the historic Metis village of Janvier, Alberta and is a descendant of persons who
applied for scrip at Lac la Loche.

51. The Plaintiff Raul Montgrand is a citizen of the Métis Nation and is the President of the
Chard Metis Dene Inc. in the historic Métis village of Janvier, Alberta. Mr. Montgrand is
a descendant of persons who applied for scrip at Lac la Loche.

52. The individual Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Métis Nation
citizens who consider their traditional territory to be that part of Saskatchewan and
Alberta which approximate area is shown as shaded on the map attached hereto as
Appendix “A”, and which is referred to hereinafter as the “Claim Area”.

53. The Plaintiff A la Baie Métis Local 21 Inc is the political/governmental representative of
the Métis who reside in the historic Métis village of Ile a la Crosse, Saskatchewan and is
an incorporated entity under N-4.2, The Non-Profit Corporations Act, 1995.

8
54. The Plaintiff Michel Village Métis Local 65 is the political/governmental representative of
the Métis who reside in the Métis Hamlet of Michel Village, Saskatchewan.

55. The Plaintiff Fort McKay Metis Community Association (Operating as the Fort McKay
Metis Nation) is the political/governmental representative of the Métis who reside in and
around the historic Métis village of Fort McKay, Alberta, and is duly incorporated under
the Societies Act, RSA 2000, c. S-14.

56. The Plaintiff Willow Lake Metis Association is the political/governmental representative
of the Métis who reside in and around the historic Métis village of Anzac, Alberta, and is
duly incorporated under the Societies Act, RSA 2000, c. S-14.

57. The Plaintiff Chard Metis Dene Inc. is the political/governmental representative of the
Métis who reside in and around the historic Métis village of Janvier, Alberta, and is duly
incorporated under the Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c. B-9.

58. The Plaintiff Metis Nation of Alberta Association Local Council #193 Conklin is the
political/governmental representative of the Métis who reside in and around the historic
Métis village of Conklin, Alberta, and is duly incorporated under the Societies Act, RSA
2000, c. S-14.

59. The Plaintiff Metis Nation of Alberta Association Local Council 1949 Owl River is the
political/governmental representative of the Métis who reside in and around the historic
Métis village of Lac La Biche, Alberta, and is duly incorporated under the Societies Act,
RSA 2000, c. S-14.

60. The Plaintiff Athabasca Landing Metis Community Association is the political/
governmental representative of the Métis who reside in and around the historic Métis
village of Conklin, Alberta, and is duly incorporated under the Societies Act, RSA 2000, c.
S-14.

61. The Plaintiff Lakeland Metis Community Association is the political/governmental

representative of the Métis who reside in and around the historic Métis village of Lac La
Biche, Alberta, and is duly incorporated under the Societies Act, RSA 2000, c. S-14.

62. The individual Plaintiffs are also citizens of the Métis Nation based on the following
definition:

“Métis” means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other

Aboriginal peoples, is of Historic Métis Nation ancestry, and is accepted by the
Métis Nation.

1.2 “Historic Métis Nation” means the Aboriginal people then known
as Métis or Halfbreeds who resided in the Historic Métis Nation
Homeland.

9
 1.3 “Historic Métis Nation Homeland” means the area of land in West
Central North America used and occupied as the traditional territory of the
Métis or Half-breeds as they were then known.

1.4 “West Central North America” means the historic Northwest

which entered into Confederation in 1870 through the negotiations of the
Métis Provisional Government led by President Louis Riel.

(GA1301-14, March 2013 General Assembly Resolution.)

1.5 “Métis Nation” means the Aboriginal people descended from the
Historic Métis Nation which is now comprised of all Métis Nation citizens
and is one of the “aboriginal peoples of Canada” within the meaning of
s.35 of the Constitution Act 1982.

1.6 “Distinct from other Aboriginal peoples” means distinct for

cultural and nationhood purposes.

63. All of the individual Plaintiffs meet the criteria for registration as a Métis Nation citizen.

64. The Defendant, Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Canada, is represented by the
Attorney General of Canada who is responsible for the Constitution of Canada and all
statutes thereunder and represents the government of Canada in all litigation for or against
the Crown, referred to herein as “Canada”.

THE MÉTIS NATION

65. Originally of mixed Indian and European ancestry, these mixed-ancestry people in the
historic Northwest, from at least the mid-1700s, evolved over several generations through
a process of ethnogenesis into a distinct and new Aboriginal people and by 1816 at the
Battle of Frog Plain (also known as the Battle of Seven Oaks) declared their nationhood
and unfurled their Métis Nation flag.

66. This new nation, the Métis Nation in what is now western Canada developed its own
language (Michif), political consciousness, culture, music, dance, clothing, modes of
transportation (Red River cart, York boat), governance institutions and laws, a national
flag and possessed other criteria, including kinship connections, a population and territory

10
 which constitute a people or nation under international law, or the law of nations as it was
then known.

67. By the early 19th century the Métis had developed a distinct political consciousness that
enabled them to challenge the authority of the dominant fur trade company, the Hudson’s
Bay Company.

68. With the amalgamation of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Northwest Company in
1821 many of the fur trade posts were shut down, which in turn encouraged many of their
Métis employees and families to move to the Red River Settlement.

69. While many permanent Métis settlements existed at the Red River Settlement and in other
parts of the Métis Nation homeland, the Métis were also a highly mobile people who lived
off the land through the buffalo hunts on the prairies, freighting throughout its homeland
and engagement in the fur trade in the boreal forest as part of the economic existence and
practices of the Métis Nation.

70. The traditional territory of the Métis Nation as it existed in 1870, is today encompassed
within the prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as a
contiguous part of both the Northwest Territories and northwestern Ontario in Canada,
and a contiguous part of the northwestern United States hereinafter referred to as the
“Métis Nation Homeland”, which approximate general geographic area is depicted in
Appendix “B”.

71. The Plaintiffs are part of the historic Métis Nation Homeland who resided and continue to
reside in that part of the Métis Nation Homeland in what is now known as northwest
Saskatchewan and northeast Alberta referred to as the Claim Area.

72. Many of the historic villages/settlements in the Claim Area continue to exist to this day as
Métis villages in their former locations, such as Ile a la Crosse, Green Lake, La Loche,
Lac la Biche and Fort Chipewyan, while others within the Claim Area have been
established in the intervening years by residents of these original historic Métis villages.

11
73. The St. Jean Baptiste mission in 1846 at Ile a la Crosse became the central node of the
Catholic Church in Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories and served as a central
provisioning depot and communications hub between St. Boniface in the Red River
Settlement and the newly established missions throughout the Plaintiffs’ Homeland.

74. As a consequence of this Roman Catholic missionary activity, coupled with Ile a la Crosse
being the main post of the English River District of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Ile a la
Crosse emerged as the second most important Métis center within the Métis Nation, with
the Red River Settlement as the prominent location, or metropolitan center of the Métis
Nation, with St. Albert/Edmonton emerging as a more populous area by 1870.

75. While water was the main mode of transportation in the early stages, in and around the
mid-1860s the Catholic Church decided to build a cart trail between Fort Carleton and
Green Lake in order to enhance the transportation of goods which trail was completed in
August 1870. This trail connected with the Carleton Trail from the Red River Settlement
to Fort Carlton, which also connected to Fort Edmonton to the west as part of the Métis
Nation’s transportation routes. The Métis were instrumental in the transport systems of
the Northwest.

76. Louis Riel Sr, the son of Marquerite Boucher a Métisse married to Jean-Baptiste Riel, a
French voyageur from Quebec, was born on July 7, 1817 at Ile a la Crosse and died at the
Red River Settlement on January 21, 1864.

77. In 1870, the Métis Nation under the leadership of President Louis Riel, the son of Louis
Riel Sr. negotiated the entry of the province of Manitoba into Confederation through the
Manitoba Act, 1870, with the remainder of the Métis Nation homeland entering
Confederation through the Rupert’s Land Order, 1870.

78. The Rupert’s Land Order, 1870 provided for fair dealings with Indigenous peoples by
including an acknowledgment of the “equitable principles which have uniformly governed
the British Crown in its dealings with the aborigines”, which was referentially

12
 incorporated into the Constitution Act, 1867 by virtue of s. 146 which authorized the
admission of the territory into Confederation “on such terms and conditions … as are in
the Addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve…”.

79. These “equitable principles” referenced above are those codified in the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 which guided the interaction between Indigenous peoples and
nations in British North American and the colonial governments.

80. By s. 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 the Métis of that newly created province primarily
centered at the Red River Settlement were allocated 1.4 million acres of land towards the
extinguishment of their Indian title through provision of such land to the children of the
Métis (Half-breed) heads of families.

81. While the Métis wished to have this land allocated on a collective basis the federal
government opted to issue the land in individual allotments, which was rife with delay.

82. Through adverse and repressive actions, including killings, rapes, destruction of property
and beatings by the newly arrived Canadian militia, termed a reign of terror in the media
of the day, a large number of Métis in the newly created Province of Manitoba were
forced to abandon their homes and move further west and north to join existing Métis
settlements or start new ones.

83. Leading up to the passage of the Manitoba Act, 1870, by 1869 the population of the Red
River Settlement consisted of 9,800 Métis and 1,600 Whites, which after the Métis Nation
joined Canada in 1870 dropped from 83 percent to just 7 percent in 1886. This was due to
the repressive actions by Canada against the Métis causing them to move as well as by a
massive influx of English settlers from Ontario.

84. In 1879, the Dominion Lands Act was amended (S.C. 1879, c. 31) and by section 125 (e)
the Governor-in-Council was empowered to:

… satisfy any claims existing in connection with the extinguishment of the Indian
title preferred by half-breeds resident in the North-West Territories outside the

13
 limits of Manitoba, on the fifteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
seventy, by granting lands to such persons, to such extent and on such terms and
conditions, as may be deemed expedient.

85. Subsequently, as with s. 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, the Métis were dealt with as
individuals, and not as a collective.

86. This 1879 amendment was not acted upon until January 28, 1885 through Order in
Council P.C. 135. In March 1885, after it became apparent that the Métis in the
Saskatchewan Valley, who were once again under the leadership of President Louis Riel,
were taking up arms in defence of their land rights. By Order in Council, P.C. 688, 30
March 1885 a Scrip Commission was created and mandated to take applications at various
locations.

87. For the Claim Area, scrip applications were taken and certificates for scrip were
subsequently issued in the Claim Area in 1886 at Lac la Biche and in 1887 as part of the
Treaty 6 territory; 1899 at Fort Chipewyan, Fort McMurray and Athabasca Landing as
part of the Treaty 8 process; and 1906 and 1907 at Ile a la Crosse and Portage La Loche
and La Loche Mission as part of the Treaty 10 process.

88. Between 1886 and 1912, two types of scrip coupons were issued: (1) land scrip which
provided homestead lands as identified on the scrip coupon itself, and (2) money scrip
which provided dollars for the purchase of land by whomever had possession of the
money scrip coupon. Both types of scrip were only redeemable in areas which were
surveyed and open for homesteads. The terms of scrip awards, summarized below,
changed over time.

Land Scrip Money Scrip

160 acres 240 acres $160 $240

1885-1898
Adults √ √

Children √ √

14
 1899-1912
Adults √ √

Children √ √

89. In 1899 it was clearly expressed by the Minister of the Interior through Order in Council
P.C. No. 2000 C dated May 6, 1899 and signed off by The Right Honourable Sir Wilfred
Laurier, that the

… claim of the Half-Breeds is well founded and should be admitted. As already

set forth he is of the opinion that Indian and Half-Breed rights are co-existent and
should be dealt with concurrently. When Half-Breed rights are not so
extinguished, they must, he considers, be held to exist after the extinguishment of
the Indian title and up to such time as action is duly taken for their
extinguishment.

90. In connection to the Métis dealt with in 1906 by Commissioner McKenna, he said with
respect to the potential scrip applicants:

The Indians dealt with are in character, habit, manner of dress and mode of living
similar to the Chipewyans and Crees of the Athabaska country. It is difficult to
draw a line of demarcation between those who classed themselves as Indians and
those who elected to be treated with as half-breeds. Both dress alike and follow
the same mode of life. It stuck me that the one group was, on the whole, as well
able to provide for self-support as the other.

91. Commissioner McKenna was accompanied to the 1906 scrip application and certificate
distribution at Ile a la Crosse, Portage La Loche and La Loche Mission by a number of
White scrip speculators who were there to secure the scrip entitlement of the Métis
applicants, armed with the knowledge that both land and money scrip applications would
be taken and upon approval that certificates of scrip entitlement would be issued to the
applicants as proof that the applications were approved with the actual scrip coupons to be
issued to the applicants at a later date.

15
92. The Métis applicants did not benefit from the scrip coupons which should have been
delivered to them, and that the speculators travelling with the Scrip Commission
eventually ended up with the scrip coupon once it was issued by the federal government in
Ottawa, by purchasing the scrip certificates from the Métis applicants for a fraction of its
worth. At that time, the Métis in the Ile a la Crosse area were still dealing in the “Made
Beaver” fur trade system, which was not replaced by the Canadian monetary system until
1908.

93. Almost every scrip application was signed with an “X”, as the vast majority of the Métis
there could neither read nor write in either English or French, the official languages of
Canada.

94. In 1896, the federal government provided the Catholic Church land at St. Paul des Métis
for the purpose of providing a refuge/home for the destitute Métis of the prairies, which
ended in failure as the Métis in about 1905 and the next two years were forced to move off
the lands originally set aside for them, with French people subsequently brought in by the
Church to replace them.

95. In 1912, the federal government set aside two townships at Green Lake for the benefit of
the Métis of Green Lake, to which the provincial government of Saskatchewan after the
Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, 1930 (Constitution Act, 1930) in the mid-1940s
added a further 10 townships which were later rescinded by the provincial government.

96. In 1905 the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were established, thereby creating an
artificial boundary between the Métis community of what is now northwest Saskatchewan
and northeast Alberta. This completed the dissection or dismemberment of the Métis
Nation homeland which began in 1870 with the establishment of the province of
Manitoba.

97. In 1930, the federal government transferred most of the Crown lands to the provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan without consulting the Métis within those two provinces.

16
98. When attempts by Métis individuals to address the land scrip fraud and speculation in the
newly created province of Alberta were initiated, the Criminal Code in 1921 was amended
by Parliament to impose a statute of limitations provision of three years on frauds related
to scrip, which defeated Métis attempts to deal with such frauds through the legal process.

99. In 1938, following the recommendations of the Ewing Commission the government of
Alberta set aside 12 Métis Colonies (Settlements), four of which were subsequently
rescinded by the province, two of which fall within the Claim Area in northeast Alberta.

100. In the 1940s several Métis farms were set aside by the provincial government for the
Métis in southern Saskatchewan at places such as Crescent Lake, Crooked Lake, Lestock,
Lebret, Baljennie, Willow Bunch and Glen Mary which were subsequently retaken by the
province, and in at least one case the Métis were coerced into moving, and their homes
and property destroyed, with many of the residents from several farms relocated north to
the Green Lake colony/townships.

101. In 1954, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta leased a large portion of the Claim
Area to the federal government as a bombing range without consultation, nor the free prior
and informed consent of the Métis of the Claim Area, for which no proper compensation
has been made for the loss of their traditional livelihood based on their Aboriginal
harvesting rights in that area.

102. This displacement from their traditional harvesting areas caused great hardship for the
affected Métis many of whom had conducted a commercial fishery in that area, who
today, along with other Métis fishers in northwest Saskatchewan, are seeing their
commercial fishing livelihood threatened through governmental action leading to
reductions in fish quotas for the sake of non-Indigenous sports fishermen. In Alberta, the
commercial fishery was completely closed by that provincial government on August 1,
2014 without the free, prior and informed consent of the Métis fishers in that province.

103. In the aftermath of the dispossession of the citizens of the Métis Nation by scrip,
including the citizens of the Métis Nation who have and continue to make their home in

17
 the Claim Area, in the 1940s the Métis as part of the Aboriginal peoples were removed
from the Canadian census and for decades were ignored by the federal government.

104. This marginalization included being excluded from the majority of federal programs and
services provided to the Indians (First Nations) and Inuit until the federal budgets of 2018
and 2019; being excluded from the comprehensive and specific land claims policies;
excluded from the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the Prime Minister’s
2008 apology and the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to name but a
few.

105. This also included decades of being prosecuted for continuing the traditions and practices
of hunting and fishing wildlife and fish required to feed and clothe their families, and
facing fines and/or jail for so-doing, especially where fines could not be afforded.

106. Essentially, over the course of succeeding decades from 1870, when the Métis Nation
joined Confederation to the mid-1900s, the Métis were reduced to refugees within their
own homeland, and until recently, faced decades of being marginalized, excluded, ignored
and prosecuted.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

107. The Plaintiffs say that well prior to the date of assertion of sovereignty by the British
Crown they were part of the distinct Aboriginal people which possessed its own political,
economic, social and cultural attributes, including extensive kinship connections, as a
people and who collectively owned, occupied, used, controlled, and benefited from the
lands, lakes and resources under their own practices, customs, traditions and laws within
their traditional territory in what is now Western Canada.

108. The Plaintiffs say that the political and social consciousness of the Métis Nation was
exhibited, inter alia, through political and military actions in defence of Métis Nation
rights such as the 1816 Battle of Seven Oaks (known by the Métis as the Battle of Frog
Plain, where the blue Métis Nation flag was first unfurled in battle); the 1849 Sayer trial

18
 challenging the monopoly of the Hudson’s Bay Company; the Battle of the Grand Coteau
in 1851 against the Sioux (in present day North Dakota); the establishment of the
provisional government in the Red River in 1869-70 (which led to the negotiated entry of
Manitoba into Confederation, along with the rest of Rupert's Land and the North Western
Territory); and the subsequent 1885 armed resistance at Batoche.

109. The Plaintiffs say that the economy of most Métis villages and settlements in the Claim
Area was based primarily on the fur trade, including the harvesting of furs, freighting,
fishing and as part of the larger Métis Nation economy, which included the buffalo hunt
(for the supply of pemmican and tallow to fuel the fur trade).

110. The Plaintiffs say that prior to the assertion of sovereignty by the British Crown, some
citizens of the Métis Nation lived within the Claim Area and comprised a distinct
Aboriginal cultural and political regional community, which collectively owned,
possessed, occupied, used and had the benefit of lands and resources within the Claim
Area in accordance with their own laws, customs and traditions. This situation developed
as follows:

a. During the evolution of the Métis Nation, the ancestors of the Plaintiffs continued
to hunt, trap, gather and fish for both commercial and subsistence purposes in and
around the fur trading post at Ile a la Crosse (established in 1776 by Thomas
Frobisher and shortly thereafter taken over by the Northwest Company) and its
network of secondary posts; and

b. With the expansion of trading posts, Métis settled in various locations

(villages/settlements) in the area now known as northwestern Saskatchewan and
northeastern Alberta; historically and presently those Métis made and continue to
make their livelihood from the lands and resources in the Claim Area. These
settlements include, amongst others, Ile a la Crosse, La Loche, Buffalo Narrows,
Beauval, and Cole Bay in northwest Saskatchewan and Fort Chipewyan, Lac la
Biche, Conklin, Chard/Janvier and Fort McKay in northeast Alberta.

19
111. The Plaintiffs say that the Royal Proclamation made by His Majesty King George Ill on
the 7th of October 1763 (referred to herein as the "Royal Proclamation") codified a policy
and system of equitable principles to be followed and complied with in dealings with the
Aboriginal rights of Aboriginal peoples, including Aboriginal title to their lands and
resources.

112. The Plaintiffs say that the 1870 Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order,
R.S.C. 1985, App. 11, No.9, with Schedules thereto, required Canada to consider and
settle, in conformity with the equitable principles which uniformly governed the British
Crown in its dealings with the “aborigines” (Aboriginal peoples), the claims of Aboriginal
peoples to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement. The Plaintiffs
further say that the equitable principles referred to therein include, inter alia, the policy
and system of equitable principles codified by the Royal Proclamation, 1763.

113. The Plaintiffs say that the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order, 1870,
supra, applies to the Plaintiffs as “Indians” within the meaning of the term as used in the
said Order and Royal Proclamation and is a recognition and affirmation of the Plaintiffs'
Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title to their lands and resources.

114. The Plaintiffs say that:

a. Canada, in 1886, by Order in Council P.C. 309, March 1, 1886 appointed

Commissioner Roger Goulet to take applications for scrip by Halfbreeds (Métis)

at various locations, including Lac la Biche, in follow-up to his previous work

with respect to the 1885 Scrip Commission sittings;

b. Canada, in 1899, by Order in Council, P.C. No. 2749, appointed Commissioners

David Laird, J. H. Ross and J.A.J McKenna to negotiate Treaty 8 with the Cree

20
 and Dene Indians of northern Alberta, the southern NWT, northeastern British

Columbia and northwestern Saskatchewan. Commissioners James Walker and

Joseph Coté by Order in Council, P.C. 918, dated May 6, 1899 were also

empowered to, and did, take scrip applications from the Halfbreeds (Métis) and

did so at places such as Fort Chipewyan, Smith’s Landing, Athabasca Landing

and Fort McMurray;

c. Canada, in 1906, by Orders in Council P.C. No. 1459 and 1457, dated July 20,

1906, appointed James A. J. McKenna Commissioner to negotiate Treaty 10 with

the Cree and Dene Indians of northern Saskatchewan and a contiguous portion of

Alberta. He was also empowered to, and did, take scrip application from

Halfbreeds (Métis) at Ile a la Crosse, Portage La Loche and La Loche Mission.

d. Canada, in 1907, by Order in Council dated Apri1 6, 1907, appointed Thomas

Alexander Borthwick Commissioner to take adhesions to Treaty 10 and take scrip

applications from Halfbreeds (Métis) who did not make application for scrip in

1906;

e. The Commissioners referred to in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above were only mandated

to deal with the Métis individually and did not deal with the Métis people

collectively, offering them only two choices: accept scrip, or give up their identity

as Métis and take Treaty as Indians; and

21
 f. The certificates for scrip issued by the Commissioners, and the scrip coupons

subsequently issued by Canada, did not, and could not, provide a means for the

Métis represented by the Plaintiffs or their ancestors to secure the land and

resource base, which they needed and were entitled to, in order to ensure a secure

collective future in the Claim Area because scrip could not be redeemed for land

within the Claim Area because it was not surveyed and open for homesteading,

coupled with the fact that the scrip coupons were delivered directly to the third

party speculators.

115. The Plaintiffs further say that the design, implementation and administration of the scrip
system was neither a legitimate nor "good-faith" attempt by Canada to acquire and
extinguish the Aboriginal title of the Métis.

116. The Plaintiffs say that Canada knowingly and willfully, if not arranged, at the very least
allowed scrip speculators to accompany the various scrip commissions, knowing that scrip
speculators would immediately purchase the Scrip Certificates issued to applicants
approved for such, for well less than fair market price, or as a minimum, knowingly
turned a blind eye.

117. The Plaintiffs say that Canada knowingly and willfully established the scrip system when
it knew that the Métis then residing in the Claim Area were unfamiliar with a cash
monetary system and the monetary value of land and/or money scrip.

118. The Plaintiffs say that Canada knowingly and willfully imposed the scrip system in the
Claim Area when it knew that scrip could be redeemed only for surveyed lands open for
homestead and that there were no surveyed lands at that time within the Plaintiffs’
Homeland. Canada knew that the Métis Nation citizens from the Claim Area would have
had to move out of the Claim Area to redeem and benefit from their scrip. Canada knew

22
 that this would not occur in any significant numbers, if at all, and that the scrip would be
almost worthless to the Métis Nation citizens in the Claim Area.

119. The Plaintiffs say that the process established for administering the scrip system did not
serve the Métis, even if that had been the intention, as the vast majority, if virtually not all
of the land scrip coupons subsequently issued by the federal government ended up in the
hands of third parties through direct transfer, thereby circumventing the actual Métis
applicants.

a. In the case of northwest Saskatchewan, based on the research to date, of the 742
land scrip coupons issued, 725 were assigned directly to third parties, with only 3
coupons converted by the Métis grantee to a letters patent. As of 1933, 10
coupons were unredeemed and 4 had missing information.

b. In the case of Lac la Biche in northeast Alberta, based on the research to date,
only one percent of the Métis grantees acquired letters patent, while 74 percent
were assigned to third parties, the remaining 25 percent still under review.

120. The Plaintiffs further say that the only way that the third party scrip speculators could
benefit from the receipt of these land scrip coupons from the federal government was
through a fraudulent system of impersonation and forgery.

121. The Plaintiffs say that the scrip system was a fraud and a sham on the Métis citizens of
the Claim Area and was incapable of extinguishing their Aboriginal title.

122. The Plaintiffs say that, at all material times, the Plaintiffs and their ancestors had and
continue to have Aboriginal rights as members of the Metis Nation, arising out of their
possession, occupation, use and benefit of the Claim Area. These rights include, inter alia,
Aboriginal title to the possession, occupation, use and benefit of those lands and resources
in the Claim Area which they required, and continue to require, in order to sustain
themselves as a distinct Aboriginal people; harvesting rights, including rights to fish, hunt,
trap and gather, for subsistence and commercial purposes; and an inherent right of self-

23
 government which includes the authority to safeguard and develop their languages,
culture, economies, identity, institutions, and traditions, and to develop, maintain and
strengthen their relationship with their lands, waters and environment so as to determine
and control their development as a people according to their own values and priorities and
to ensure the integrity of their society.

123. The Plaintiffs say that the policy, system and equitable principles referred to in
paragraphs 111 to 113 should have been applied by Canada to the citizens of the Métis
Nation residing within the Claim Area, rather than the scrip system, but were not so
applied. As a result thereof, the lands and resources in the Claim Area have, at all material
times, been "reserved" for their benefit, within the meaning of that term in the Royal
Proclamation, 1763, and the powers and interests of the Defendant in respect of those
lands and resources have, at all material times, been subject to the rights and interests
claimed herein, until a mutually agreeable land claim agreement is concluded with the
Plaintiffs' free, prior and informed consent.

124. The Plaintiffs say that their rights referred to in paragraph 122 are existing Aboriginal
rights, including Aboriginal title, which are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, as well as provided for in Articles 10, 20, 26 and 28 of the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

125. The Plaintiffs say that:

a. As a result of the unilateral imposition of the scrip system, their ancestors and
now themselves, have been reduced to marginal economic and political positions;
and

b. This marginalization has occurred, even though the Plaintiffs and their ancestors
have persisted in continuing their distinctive Métis culture, collective aspirations
and political organizations, including a continued reliance on traditional use of
resources such as hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering.

24
126. The Plaintiffs say that their Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title, co-exist with the
Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Dene and Cree in the Claim Area, which rights are not
affected by this claim.

127. The Plaintiffs say that the rights and interests claimed herein fall within
section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, on the basis that the Plaintiffs are "Indians"
within the meaning of the said section and that the reference to "lands reserved for the
Indians" in the section includes the Claim Area and resources claimed by the Plaintiffs
herein.

128. The Plaintiffs further say that the Defendant was and is in a fiduciary relationship with
the Métis Nation and its citizens, and owed and continues to owe a fiduciary duty to the
Plaintiffs in regard to the exercise of Canada's authority, as it affects the Aboriginal rights
of the Plaintiffs.

129. The Plaintiffs say that the Defendant, as part of its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs, was
required to obtain the free, prior and informed collective consent of the Métis Nation
citizens within the Claim Area and to negotiate agreements to secure their Aboriginal
rights, including Aboriginal title. The failure to obtain such free, prior and informed
consent and to negotiate such agreements, were and are continuing breaches of the
fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiffs.

130. The Plaintiffs further say that the fiduciary obligation of Canada referred to above in
para. 128, acquired constitutional status pursuant to the Rupert's Land and North Western
Territory Order 1870, R.S.C. 1985, App. 11, No. 9.

131. The Plaintiffs say that Canada knew that no scrip would or could be redeemed for land by
the Métis Nation citizens within the Claim Area, and would in fact be sold to speculators
for a fraction of its worth. As a result, the Plaintiffs say that the scrip system was a sham

25
 that was never designed to convey benefits to them, and accordingly was a breach of the
fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiffs, as well as a breach of the honour of the Crown.

132. The Plaintiffs say that the Defendant acted in further breach of its fiduciary obligation to
Métis Nation citizens and the honour of the Crown when it imposed the scrip system on
the Métis Nation citizens of the Claim Area, in that Canada knew or ought to have known
that the scrip system unilaterally imposed was designed to and would destroy, rather than
secure, the base of land and resources which the Métis required, and were entitled to, in
order to continue to live as a distinct Aboriginal people in the Claim Area.

133. The Plaintiffs further say that the Defendant knew that the Métis Nation citizens of the
Claim Area did not have the means to relocate to southern surveyed lands open to
homestead entry and that frauds and abuses would be visited upon them, which in fact did
occur leading to speculation and devaluation of the land scrip through abusive acts of
impersonation, forgery, false witness declarations and sharp dealings which the Defendant
knew would happen or ought to have known or simply was indifferent to and/or simply
turned a blind eye.

134. The Defendant in the late 1800s and early 1900s had full knowledge of the abuses foisted
upon the citizens of the Métis Nation living in the newly created province of Manitoba in
1870 through the negotiations of the Provisional Government under President Louis Riel
and the ensuing two and one half year reign of terror inflicted upon the Métis Nation
citizens residing in the Red River Settlement forcing thousands to relocate to other
locations to the west and north within the Métis Nation homeland.

135. The Plaintiffs say that the operation of the scrip system did not extinguish the Aboriginal
rights, including Aboriginal title, of the Plaintiffs within the Claim Area.

136. The Plaintiffs say that they and their ancestors, on many occasions, have demanded that
the Defendant recognize their Aboriginal rights, including their Aboriginal title, and
negotiate agreements to secure their collective future in the Claim Area, but the Defendant

26
 has consistently refused to acknowledge the rights and title of the Plaintiffs and their
ancestors, or to negotiate the basis of those rights and title.

137. The Plaintiffs say that the Defendant was and continues to be in breach of the honour of
the Crown, as well as the fiduciary obligations owed to the Plaintiffs in the within claim to
the present time by refusing to negotiate or conclude a land claim agreement with the
Plaintiffs.

138. The Plaintiffs further say that the Defendant has obligations pursuant to customary and
conventional international law, as it has developed to date, to recognize and affirm the
Aboriginal rights, including the Aboriginal title, of the Plaintiffs within the Claim Area
and to recognize and affirm the right not to be deprived thereof without their free, prior
and informed consent. The Plaintiffs, as Aboriginal peoples (Indigenous peoples), have
the right to self-determination within the Claim Area in accordance with international law.
The Defendant was and continues to be in breach of these legal obligations owed to the
Plaintiffs.

139. The Plaintiffs say that after the Métis Nation emerged as an Aboriginal nation in western
Canada and, in particular, in the Claim Area, the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta
were established in 1905 by The Saskatchewan Act, 1905 4 - 5 Edward VII, c. 42 (Can)
and The Alberta Act, 1905 4 – 5 Edward VII, c. 3 (Can) thereby further
dissecting/dismembering the Claim Area taking such action without consulting the Métis.
From 1905 to 1930, the Defendant retained control of the lands and resources within the
Claim Area.

140. The Plaintiffs say that by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement dated March 20th,
1930, between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and the Government of the
Province of Saskatchewan, which was subsequently ratified by the Constitution Act, 1930,
and in particular sections 1 and 2 of Part 3 of the Schedule thereto, The Saskatchewan
Natural Resources Act, S.C. 20-21 George V. 1930, Chapter 41 and An Act Relating to the
Transfer of Natural Resources to the Province, S.S. 20 George V, 1930, Chapter 87, the

27
 interest of the Crown in Crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties, subject to a number
of exceptions, was transferred from the Defendant to the province of Saskatchewan.

141. The Plaintiffs further say that by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement dated
December 4, 1929, between the Government of the Dominion of Canada and the
Government of the Province of Alberta, which was subsequently ratified by the
Constitution Act, 1930, and in particular sections 1 and 2 of Part 3 of the Schedule thereto,
The Alberta Natural Resources Act, S.C. 20-21 George V. 1930, Chapter 41 and An Act
Relating to the Transfer of Natural Resources to the Province, S.S. 20 George V, 1930,
Chapter 87, the interest of the Crown in Crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties,
subject to a number of exceptions, was transferred from the Defendant to the province of
Alberta.

142. The Plaintiffs say that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are assignees of all
rights in Crown lands transferred to them from the Defendant, and as such have no greater
right in the Crown lands than did Canada prior to the execution of the Natural Resources
Transfer Agreements in 1930.

143. The Plaintiffs further say that the interests of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta
in the Claim Area are subject to the Aboriginal rights, including the Aboriginal title, of the
Plaintiffs.

144. The Plaintiffs say that the Defendant has wrongfully alienated lands and resources within
the Claim Area to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta without the free, prior and
informed consent of the Plaintiffs, and without first providing a secure land and resource
base for the Plaintiffs or their ancestors. The effect of the said wrongful alienation by the
Defendant has been the denial of the use and benefit of the Aboriginal rights, including
the Aboriginal title, of the Plaintiffs. As a result of this wrongful alienation by the
Defendant of the Plaintiffs' interest in these lands, the Plaintiffs have been denied their
Aboriginal rights and title within the Claim Area.

28
145. The Plaintiffs say that they remain a landless people and that they continue to be
economically and politically marginalized as a result thereof. As citizens of the Métis
Nation they continue to be a distinct Aboriginal people within the Claim Area. The
Defendant has historically failed and/or refused and continues to fail and/or refuse to
recognize the Plaintiffs' Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title, within the Claim
Area. As a result thereof, the Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages both
individually and collectively.

146. The Plaintiffs further say that the Defendant, as well as its assignees Saskatchewan and
Alberta, have a duty to consult with the Plaintiffs whenever the Plaintiffs' Aboriginal
rights may be negatively affected by the development or taking up of lands and resources
within the Claim Area. On numerous and various occasions, the Defendant, as well as its
provincial government assignees, have approved and authorized developments without
any, or little, consultation with the Plaintiffs in breach of the duty to consult.

147. The Plaintiffs say that this has led to the marginalization and virtual exclusion of the
Plaintiffs from the economic benefits derived by governments and industry within the
Claim Area and the deprivation of meaningful participation in major projects and
developments taking place within their traditional territory.

148. The Plaintiffs specifically plead and rely upon the following:

a. The Constitution Act, 1867, and in particular sections 91 (24), 109 and 146

thereof;

b. The Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order, R.S.C. 1985, App. 11,

No. 9, and in particular, section 14 of the Deed of Surrender thereof, with

Schedules;

29
 c. The Dominion Lands Act, 1879, as amended from time to time, and in particular

section 125(e) thereof;

d. The Constitution Act, 1930, and in particular sections 1 and 2 of Part 3 of the

Schedule thereto;

e. The Constitution Act, 1982, and in particular section 35 thereof; and

f. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples A/61/295.

RELIEF SOUGHT

149. The Plaintiffs therefore respectfully claim:

a. A Declaration that the Plaintiffs have existing Aboriginal rights, including

Aboriginal title, within the Claim Area, which are recognized and affirmed in
section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and which have never been lawfully
surrendered or extinguished, and in particular the Aboriginal title and rights to the
ownership, possession, occupation, use and benefit of those lands and resources in
the Claim Area which they require to sustain them as a distinct Aboriginal people.

b. A Declaration that the Defendant has an obligation to negotiate with the Plaintiffs,
in good faith, to conclude a mutually agreeable land claim agreement, including
self-government, within the meaning of section 35(3) of the Constitution Act,
1982;

30
 c. A Declaration that the Defendant did not fulfill the honour of the Crown in its
creation, implementation and supervision of the scrip system and distribution
imposed on the citizens of the Métis Nation within the Claim Area.

d. The costs of this action; and

e. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court
may allow.

DATED at the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 16th day of October,
2019.

Per: ______________________________
Clément Chartier QC
Tel: 306-235-4489
Email: clemchartier@sasktel.net

Métis Legal Research and Education Foundation

Box 361
Buffalo Narrows, Sask. S0M 0J0

Lawyer for the Plaintiffs

31