Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology 1: 24-28 (2009)
The Caledonia Land Dispute
By: Illusha Nokhrin*
* Illusha Nokhrin is a 2nd Year Undergraduate Student studying Anthropology at the University of Toronto and the
Co-Creator and Co-Editor-in-Cheif of the Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology.
Abstract:
Beginning with colonial invasion and emerging out of hundreds of years of negotiations and
treaties, the Caledonia land dispute was one of the largest and most publicized Native land
claims disputes in Canada. In this brief paper, I analyze the history behind the land around
which the dispute was centered and give an overview of the Treaty of Nanfan and the Haldimand
Deed. I then provide a succinct overview of how the present-day dispute emerged before offering
some suggestions as to how the dispute could be resolved, ultimately arguing for a new set of
legal documents, drafted by First Nations members, residents of Caledonia and government
officials, which would supersede the existing legal documents concerning the area and establish
a new framework for rights in the region.
As with many large-scale legal disputes involving Native Americans in Canada,
the Caledonia land reclamation centers around issues of commercial development and
contradictory legal documents. Similar to the Alberta Tar Sands controversy, the
Caledonia land dispute was sparked by a desire on the part of non-native corporations
to start commercial development on land to which First Nations groups have legal
claim. However, in the Caledonia dispute, this portion of the issue was quickly resolved
when the government of Ontario bought and halted development on the land in
question, Douglas Creek estates, in June 2006 (Ontario buys, 2006). Unfortunately,
deciding which group has legal ownership of the contested land has proven to be a
much more complex issue. This is primarily due to poorly constructed and often
contradictory legal documents concerning the land surrounding Douglas Creek estates
and the Grand River. Indeed, the land in question is mentioned in no fewer than five
legal documents, some of which claim that it is owned by the Six Nations while others
assert that it is owned by the Crown. Thus, unless these contradictions are somehow
reconciled or subverted, it seems unlikely that the Caledonia land dispute will reach a
conclusion at any time in the near future.
Because the Caledonia land dispute has a heavy historical basis, some knowledge
of the region's history is necessary for a thorough understanding of the recent dispute.
In 1701, twenty chiefs from the Five Nations, precursors to the modern-day Six Nations
(Snow, 1996), signed the treaty of Nanfan, which gave the British Crown a large tract of
land surrounding the Great Lakes, including land near the Grand River (Horsnell,
2007). However, the Treaty of Nanfan's transfer of land was conditional upon timeless
24
Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009.
Illusha Nokhrin
hunting rights and protection by the British Crown granted to the Five Nations and
their descendants (House of Representatives, 1899). In contrast to the Treaty of Nanfan,
in 1784 Governor General Fredrick Haldimand issued a proclamation that alloted six
miles of land on either side of the Grand River to the Six Nations (Horsnell, 2007). Yet
another change of ownership occurred in 1835, when the Crown received legal rights to
develop the land surrounding Plack Road, now Highway six, from the Six Nations and
began selling land in the area in the late 1840s. However, in a 1995 lawsuit, Six Nations
members argued that their ancestors never agreed to sell the land, only to put it up for
long-term lease from which Six Nations members would receive continuous financial
support (Caledonia land, 2006). As Leroy Hill explained in a recent interview, the 1835
leases were based on the idea of “perpetual care and maintenance” and were created as
a source of income for First Nations groups in the surrounding area (Hughes, 2007).
Unfortunately, as with many legal documents surrounding native land claims, the exact
conditions surrounding the 1835 leases remain unclear. Thus, due to the contradictory
nature of the Grand River legal documents, both native and non-native parties have
been able to claim the land as their own, which gave rise to the Caledonia land dispute
in 2006.
The recent dispute began when Henco Industries began building housing
developments near the Grand River in early 2006. Upon learning of these
developments, Six Nations members from the Grand River reserve blockaded the
construction site, claiming that the land belonged to them and that the developments
were unauthorized. Conversely, Henco Industries claimed that they owned the title to
the land, having received it upon purchasing another company that had bought land in
the area in the 1840s. The dispute quickly escalated, with several incidents of violence
between native protesters and non-native residents of Caledonia breaking out in the
months following the original blockade. Tensions were alleviated when the Ontario
government bought the disputed land from Henco industries in June 2006 (Caledonia
land, 2006). However, the debate around who has legal ownership of the land has yet to
be settled.
Due to the historic nature of the current conflict, there appear to be two possible
paths for its resolution. The first approach would entail a thorough historical analysis of
the legal documents concerning Douglass Creek estates in order to straighten out the
contradictions between the Nanfan Treaty, the Proclamation of 1784, and any
documents that resulted from the 1840s negotiations. This analysis would likely focus
on whether Six Nations leaders agreed to sell the land in question during the 1840s
negotiations, or if they wished that it merely be put up for lease. The 'Western' notion of
rights would play a large role in this investigation, as lessors retain certain rights to the
land that non-owners do not. Furthermore, lessees are required to make payments to
their lessors. Thus, if the Six Nations agreed for the land to be leased, they would be
legally entitled to payments from any companies or people that currently occupy the
land (Hughes, 2007). Unfortunately, it would likely be quite difficult to carry out such
an analysis, since most legal documents regarding land transfers between First Nations
groups and Europeans do not state the names of native signatories, instead marking
them with a simple x (Sieciechowicz, 2008). Furthermore, in the 1995 lawsuit, Six
Nations members stated that chiefs were “deceived and intimidated” during the 1840s
negotiations (Caledonia land, 2006), which may affect the legal admissibility of any
Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009.
25
The Caledonia Land Dispute
documents that arose from the negotiations. Therefore, a complete survey of the
historical agreements relevant to the current dispute would likely prove difficult and
inconclusive.
Another approach to resolving the current issue would involve an attempt to
subvert, rather than reconcile the contradictions of the Grand River legal documents.
This would require the creation of a new document that would nullify the previous
ones. Of course, the terms of any such document would have to be jointly drawn up
and ratified by leaders of the Six Nations, residents of Caledonia, and government of
Ontario, which would undoubtedly make its creation a lengthy and arduous process.
However, despite the potential difficulties involved in its creation, a new document
would resolve the current legal ambiguities surrounding the ownership of the Grand
River land and would prevent such ambiguities from arising again in case other
corporations wish to pursue commercial development of the region in the future.
Unfortunately, attempting to create an entirely new legal document is unlikely to
appease the residents of Caledonia, some of who have already criticized the
government for inaction and have called for police to arrest native protesters and
remove them from the region (Marion, 2007). Indeed, with the removal of Henco
Industries from the debate in 2006, the dispute appears to have centered around
tensions between native protesters and Non-native residents of Caledonia. In October
2006, several hundred Caledonia residents gathered to rally against the native
occupation of Douglass Creek estates, claiming violence on the part of Six Nations
protesters (Ontario Judge, 2006). When rally leaders were arrested for breaking the
peace, activists leveled criticisms against the police for ignoring native transgressions
while punishing non-native residents. As one rally participant stated, “People see a
different application of the law, depending on which side of the barricade you
stand” (Dozens, 2006). Although such claims often are often reactionary and
emotionally charged, it is worth noting that there has been considerable debate as to the
legality of the Six Nations' occupation of Douglass Creek estates.
On March 10, 2006, Henco Industries filed an injunction against Six Nations
members that had blockaded the Douglass Creek construction site. The injunction was
granted by Justice David Marshall, who gave the protesters seven days to leave the site
(Caledonia Land, 2006). However, Six Nations protesters refused to abandon their
barricade, stating that they “would like to see a stop put to the development” (Native
Occupiers, 2006). When police did not arrest native protesters for ignoring the
injunction, Justice Marshall stated that “the rule of law must be honoured” and told the
government of Ontario to cease negotiations with the protesters until they had
evacuated the area (Ontario Judge, 2006). However, the government of Ontario
appealed Justice Marshall's decision on the grounds that Henco Industries no longer
owned the land in question (Protesters Can Stay, 2007). In this regard, the Caledonia
land dispute provides an example of different state bodies conflicting with one another
in their responses to native issues, thereby changing the balance of power between
native and non-native groups. It is therefore worth noting that, in buying land from
Henco Industries and appealing Judge Marshall's decision, the government of Ontario
acted in accordance with native interests, which may explain residents' claims that it has
displayed preferential treatment towards Six Nations protesters. However, it is
important to recognize that the government's actions have enabled it to pursue
26
Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009.
Illusha Nokhrin
negotiations with the Six Nations community. Thus, its actions could be seen as
demonstrating a desire to resolve the land claim rather than exemplifying a pro-native
bias.
Therefore, although the Caledonia land dispute was sparked by fear of
commercial development, it has evolved into a dispute between non-native residents of
Caledonia and native protesters and remains unresolved mainly due to contradictions
in historical legal documents concerning the Grand River and adjoining land. These
contradictions must be reconciled through historical analysis or subverted through the
creation of a new, overriding legal document before the dispute can be resolved.
Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009.
27
The Caledonia Land Dispute
References Cited
Caledonia Land Claim. (2006, November 1). Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://
www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/
Dozens of police contain Caledonia rally. (2006, October 15). Retrieved October 28, 2008, from
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/15/caledonia.html
Horsnell, G. (2007, April 27). Difficult To Resolve. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://
www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/difficult_to_resolve.htm
H.R. Doc. No. 4015 at 552-553 (1899)
Hughes, M. (2007, May 17). Six Nations and the Caledonia Land Dispute. CitizenShift.
Hamilton: National Film Board
Marion, M. (2007, September 20). Police arrest nine at native protest site in Caledonia.
Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?
story=20070920135803120
Native occupiers stay at Ontario site as deadline passes. (2006, March 22). Retrieved October
28, 2008, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/03/22/native-protest060322.html
Ontario buys land at centre of Caledonia dispute. (2006, June 18). Retrieved October 28, 2008,
from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/articlenews/story/ctvnews/20060616/court_caledonia_06
0616/2006016?hub=canada
Ontario judge outraged at protesters ignoring his order. (2006, July 6). Retrieved October 28,
2008, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/07/05/caledonia-judge.html
Protesters can stay in Caledonia: appeal court . (2006, August 27). Retrieved October 28, 2009,
from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/08/26/caledonia-judgment.html
Sieciechowicz, K. (Director) (2008, September 23). Treaties and Background. ANT365, , MP134,
Toronto, ON.
Snow, D. R. (1996). The Iroquois (The Peoples of America Series). Chicago, Illinois : Blackwell
Publishing Limited.
Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009. pp. 24-28.
http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/uja/index
This Article © 2009 Illusha Nokhrin
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canadian Version
28
Undergraduate Journal of Anthropology, Volume 1, 2009.