Agency One First Nations Rights Over Their Territory Affirmed

Friday, June 27, 2025

In a resounding victory, on June 17, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of Naicatchwenin First Nation, Nigigoonsiminikaanmng First Nation, Couchiching First Nation, and Mitaanjigamiing First Nation (the “Agency One First Nations”) – in their long legal battle with the Town of Fort Frances (the “Town”) over ownership of former Agency One First Nations’ reserve lands. 

OKT is proud to have represented the Agency One First Nations in this dispute.  

The land at issue contained what is now known as “Point Park” at the mouth of the Rainy River. In 1908, the Agency One First Nations surrendered a part of their jointly held reserve in this location to Canada for sale to settlers.  The land was never sold. Instead, Canada leased a portion of the land to the Town for 99 years for the purposes of a municipal park. At the end of the lease period, the Town asserted that despite signing a lease for the land, it actually owned Point Park and the surrendered lands. 

The Town’s claim was heard by way of summary judgment in November 2024.  The court decided that the Town has no legal or beneficial interest in the former reserve lands of the Agency One First Nations.  The court also lifted a preservation order that kept Point Park in the possession of the Town for the duration of the lawsuit, which had been in place since 2010. 

The Town recently announced that it accepts the courts decision and will not appeal. 

The Court’s Key Findings: 

1. The Reserve Was Properly Created

The Town argued that the Agency One Reserve was not properly created because of technicalities in the reserve creation process in Ontario in the late 19th century.1 The court rejected this argument, confirming that the land was validly set aside as a reserve under Treaty 3, regardless of whether final approvals between governments had occurred.2 

2. No Land Was Given to the Town in 1908

The Town claimed that a 1908 Ontario Order in Council transferred part of the reserve to them in fee simple.3 The court disagreed. Justice Fregeau found that the Order in Council simply helped resolve lingering jurisdictional issues between Ontario and Canada and did not transfer any ownership or permanent rights to the Town.4 

3. No Public Trust Was Created

The Town also claimed the 1908 Ontario Order in Council amounted to a public dedication of the land to the Town.5 But the court concluded Canada lacked the intent to dedicate the land, and in fact offered the land to the Town through a lease.6 The court decided that creating a public trust without consulting or compensating the First Nations would have been an obvious breach of the honour of the Crown.7 

4. Roads in Point Park Are Not Town Property

The Town argued that roads within Point Park had also been dedicated for public use and now belonged to the Town.8 The court disagreed again, confirming that unsurrendered reserve lands could not be publicly dedicated, and provincial legislation, like the Municipal Act, that purports to dedicate roads did not apply to federal lands after the time of the surrender.9 

5. No Damages Owed to the Town

Finally, the Town sought financial compensation from Canada and Ontario. The court rejected the claim for damages, concluding that the Town was never in a fiduciary relationship with either Crown.10 The court found that as a tenant subject to the terms of a lease, the Town cannot claim damages for funds it spent to improve and maintain Point Park.11 

Conclusion 

This decision is a triumph for the Agency One First Nations who have fought for many years to have their rights in their reserve lands recognized and protected.  It also provides clarity that that First Nations do retain an interest in the final disposition of unsold surrendered reserve lands. Entering into a surrender does not cause the First Nation’s interest to disappear.  It also provides a strong rationale to resist claims that unsold surrendered reserve lands can be dedicated in trust to the public.   

Read the full decision on CanLII: Couchiching First Nation et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada et al., 2025 ONSC 3602.