Huron Tract Treaty (Treaty 29)
Mismanagement and loss of funds from Huron Tract land sales (“Clench Defalcation”).
Treaty 29 guaranteed that proceeds from land that were sold after the treaty was signed would be invested, and the interest would be paid annually to the Anishinaabeg people. Large portions of these proceeds were misappropriated by a Crown agent J.B. Clench in the 1850s. This was a breach of the Crown’s obligations tied to Treaty 29’s revenue and interest promises. In 2015, compensation was offered to the Anishinaabeg of Treaty 29 for the misappropriated funds, which should have been available to the First Nations from the 1850s, with interest.
Seizure of Stony Point (Aazhoodena) reserve lands and failure to promptly return them after WWII.
The Stony Point reserve was one of the reserves set aside for the exclusive use of the Anishinaabeg under Treaty 29. In 1942, the federal government expropriated Stony Point under the War Measures Act to create Camp Ipperwash, promising to return the land after the war. It was not returned for decades, leading to occupations in the 1990s and the Ipperwash Crisis (1995). The Ipperwash Inquiry documents that former residents expected the land back “shortly after the war,” but this did not happen; later agreements and partial returns came only many years later. This prolonged failure to restore a Treaty 29 reserve is a serious breach of Crown obligations.
The Crown arranged land sales to the Canada Company before concluding Treaty 29.
One year before Treaty 29 was signed (July 10, 1827), the Crown had already arranged the sale of about 1 million acres of the treaty land to the Canada Company. There was a “provisional treaty” signed in 1826 effectively place the treaty land under the control fo the Canada Company. This demonstrated that the Crown bad faith toward the Anishinaabeg negotiators.
Pattern of underpayment and withholding of annuities and benefits linked to land-sale proceeds.
When Treaty 29 was signed in 1827, the Crown promised that proceeds from selling the land would be invested. The annual interest from those investments was to be paid to the Indigenous communities who signed the treaty. Over time, however, these payments were not managed properly. The funds were often delayed, mishandled, or never fully delivered. Investigations and claims have shown that the way these payments were handled did not meet the standards of honourable Crown conduct.
Failure to maintain nation-to-nation relationship.
The Huron Tract Treaty was negotiated as an agreement between nations. The Crown promised to maintain a relationship of mutual respect and care. Instead, paternalistic policies (like the Indian Act) stripped away Indigenous governance and autonomy.
Aazhoodenaang Enjibaajig. (2022). Our long struggle for home: The Ipperwash Story. On Point Press (UBC Press imprint).
Bayfield Historical Society. (2025). Where Is Here? In Indigenous history. Bayfield Historical Society. https://www.bayfieldhistorical.ca/indigenous-history/where-is-here
Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. (n.d.). Treaty texts – Upper Canada land surrenders. Government of Canada. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1370372152585/1581293792285
Government of Ontario. (2007). The Ipperwash Inquiry Report. https://www.ontario.ca/page/ipperwash-inquiry-report
Kettle & Stony Point First Nation. (2017). Clench defalcation specific claim settlement agreement [PDF]. Retrieved from https://kettlepoint.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Clench-Claim.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Leclair, L. (2020). The Clench defalcation specific claim settlement. Anishinabek News. https://anishinabeknews.ca/2020/09/18/the-clench-defalcation-specific-claim-settlement/
Land encroachment by European settlers and non-protection of treaty rights.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Crown broke its promise under Treaty 45½ because it didn’t take proper care to protect the Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s lands from settler encroachment. This failure went against the Crown’s duty to act honourably under the treaty.
Broken promises of support offered in exchange for land.
The treaty promised supports: homes, farming assistance in the treaty. The government only made vague promises and didn’t actually provide the houses, tools, or farming support. As a result, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation was left without the resources they needed to successfully settle and farm the land.
Forced land loss.
Because The Saugeen Treaty's terms were not upheld, the Saugeen felt compelled to sign Treaty 72 (the Robinson Treaty of 1854), surrendering most of the Bruce Peninsula. This surrender is regarded as coerced, resulting from the Crown's failure to honour its treaty commitments.
Failure to maintain nation-to-nation relationship.
The Saugeen Treaty was negotiated as an agreement between nations. The Crown promised to maintain a relationship of mutual respect and care. Instead, paternalistic policies (like the Indian Act) stripped away Indigenous governance and autonomy.
Sources
Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. (n.d.). Treaty texts – Upper Canada land surrenders. Government of Canada. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1370372152585/1581293792285
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. (2023). Ontario Court of Appeal confirms distinction between treaty and fiduciary obligations and rejects constructive trust as appropriate remedy for Crown breaches. https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/ontario-court-of-appeal-confirms-distinction-between-treaty-and-fiduciary-obligations-and-rejects-co/
Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office. (n.d.). Treaty history. https://www.saugeenojibwaynation.ca/node/75