Payments stemming from the Robinson Huron Treaty (RHT) legal settlement have been closely shielded by Indigenous communities. However, a recent development in a family court case in Sudbury has challenged this confidentiality stance.
Historically, courts have determined that the monetary disbursements to individuals are not considered as regular income but rather as compensation, distinct from windfall gains. Nonetheless, a lawyer representing a Sudbury resident pursued a different legal strategy, petitioning the court to compel the individual’s former partner to disclose the sum she received as part of a treaty settlement. The argument put forth was that this information would be pertinent in discussions regarding child support obligations.
The case involves Dennis Legault and Mandy Herbert, a member of the Henvey Inlet First Nation, who obtained a one-time personal payment in 2024 from her community. This payment was part of the settlement reached by 21 Anishinabek communities following a lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments for breaching the terms of the 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty, which promised equitable sharing of resources from the territory.
Herbert contested the motion in court, emphasizing that the specific payment amount should remain private and was not a decisive factor in resolving retroactive child support matters. She clarified that this sum was compensation for past injustices, not akin to lottery winnings that might affect financial considerations.
Highlighting the confidentiality surrounding the settlement, Herbert mentioned that she was bound by a non-disclosure agreement with Henvey Inlet First Nation and was advised against publicly disclosing the payment amount. Despite the request for disclosure, Herbert provided all other financial details requested by Legault.
Ultimately, Justice Susan Stothart sided with Herbert, ruling that she was not obligated to divulge the payment amount. Stothart stressed that the settlement did not augment Herbert’s financial standing and was a one-time redress for historical wrongs. The judge acknowledged that Herbert had furnished ample personal financial information to offer a comprehensive view of her economic circumstances.
Herbert’s legal representative, Hayley Cairns from Niman Mamo, expressed disappointment with the ruling, citing concerns that the judgment could set a precedent for future cases involving disclosure of treaty payments within families. Herbert echoed these sentiments, believing that the decision failed to firmly uphold the protection of treaty funds under Indigenous rights.
The ruling has left Herbert and her legal team apprehensive about potential future challenges that may undermine the inherent rights and privacy interests associated with Indigenous treaty payments.
[End of Rewritten Article]
