Skip all menus (access key: 2)Skip first menu (access key: 1)Indian Claims Commission
Français
Contact Us
Search
Employment Opportunities
Site Map
Home
About the ICC
Media Room
Links
Mailing Lists
Indian Claims Commission
December 6, 2006
/Home /Claimsmap /British Columbia /Inquiries /ICC Recommendations Rejected by Government /'Namgis First Nation [Cormorant Island] - May 11, 2001
About the ICC
 src=
 src=
 src=
Media Room
 src=
 src=
 src=
Publications
 src=
 src=
 src=
Claimsmap
Alberta
British Columbia
Inquiries
Mediation
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Nunavut
Northwest Territories
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Yukon
 src=
 src=
 src=
Email Alerts

Printable Version Printable Version
Email This Page Email This Page

'Namgis First Nation [Cormorant Island] - May 11, 2001

March 1996

The 'Namgis First Nation, on the west coast of British Columbia, claimed that Canada was negligent and in breach of both a statutory and a fiduciary obligation when it failed to refer a dispute over lands to a Supreme Court judge as stipulated in the terms of reference for the Joint Reserve Commission of 1879-80. In 1879 and 1880 the Indian Reserve Commissioner G.M. Sproat visited 'Namgis and allotted approximately 1500 acres of Cormorant Island as reserve for the First Nation. This allotment was disallowed by the Provincial Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works in 1882. In 1884 Mr. Sproat's successor, Peter O'Reilly, reallotted two reserves on Comorant Island comprising only 48.12 acres to the 'Namgis First Nation.

The 'Namgis First Nation contends that Canada acted improperly in that it failed to refer the disagreement over Mr. Sproat's original allotment to a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court, as required by the existing Order in Council appointing Mr. Sproat as Indian Reserve Commissioner.

In its final report issued March 1996, the Commission found that Canada breached its statutory and fiduciary obligations to the 'Namgis First Nation by failing to refer the dispute to a judge of the Supreme Court. Moreover, that there is a strong likelihood that the Band would have been allotted more land than it obtained if Canada had used the dispute resolution process stipulated in both the terms of reference for the Joint Reserve Commission and the relevant order in council.

Response: In May 2001, the government rejected the recommendations made in the March 1996 report.

Download Government Response

Click Here for the Report



Last Updated: 2006-03-24 Top of Page Important Notices