The issue of reconciliation was also relevant to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule  often called the Robinson Treaties case.

Canada has apologized to its Indigenous People through a declaration to that effect by its Prime Minister at the time Stephen Harper. It also accepted the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that was delivered to it by the Commissioners. In that process Canada promised to work towards reconciling with the Indigenous People of Canada whom it acknowledged had been badly treated by Canada.

From time to time, the Supreme Court of Canada has spoken about Canada’s duty to reconcile with its Indigenous People. It did so as well in this very recent  case  involving the Robinson Treaties of Canada. When the court considered to what extent if any, and how, it would intervene in the Robinson treaties it also reflected on the proper role for courts to play in Canada’s legal system as part of the judicial branch in this reconciliation process.

It accepted what a previous court had said, namely, “[r]econciliation often demands judicial forbearance. Courts should generally leave space for the parties to govern together and work out their differences.” In other words, sometimes it is better for the court to stay on the sidelines and let the parties work it out. Such working out is often best for all concerned, and in the case of treaties, it is often best for the country to have its courts allow them the space to reach an amicable agreement, rather than having the court impose its view on the parties.  That is how the parties hopefully can learn to reconcile.

In other words, the court concluded that through negotiated settlements, in good faith the parties would be much better equipped to reconcile with the First Nations. That is what the First Nations of the Huron Robinson Treaty did.  The court also noted that “true reconciliation, is rarely, if ever, achieved in courtrooms.”

In fact, in the Robinson Treaties case, Madam Justice Martin said during the oral arguments, “accountability most certainly does take place in a courtroom.” Of course, that does not mean the courts should refrain from doing their job. In some cases, courts must do their job. Sometimes it is essential that they do.  As

Mr. Justice Jamal said,

“Indeed, judicial forbearance should not come at the expense of adequate scrutiny of Crown conduct to ensure constitutional compliance… As in the present case, litigation may sometimes be the only way to bring an intransigent party to the negotiating table with a view to reaching a settlement and advancing reconciliation.”

For example, when it takes a government 150 years to do its job, clearly required by the Treaty it signed, the court must compel that government to do the right thing.

Justice Jamal wisely put it this way,

“Although it is not the business of the courts to force the Crown to exercise its discretion in a particular way, it is very much the business of the courts to review exercises of Crown discretion for constitutional compliance — to ensure that the Crown exercises its discretion in accordance with its treaty obligations and the constitutional principle of the honour of the Crown. It is appropriate in this case for this Court to order the government to repair the breach of its constitutional obligations, while leaving it up to the executive branch to determine the best means of doing so.”

 Sometimes the court must just make it clear to the government, that it must do what it has promised to do in a sacred treaty. We hope the parties can work it out as that might help the reconciliation process. We must wait and see.

Given that Canada took 150 years to agree to do what it ought to have done from the beginning, this sounds a bit like Polyannish wishful thinking.  I hope I am wrong.