Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

The Chippewas of Sarnia litigation might also fit the bill.

Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

David Cheifetz wrote:

Chaim,

The actions, so long as they're framed for breach of fiduciary duty, won't be caught by prescription period arguments here. The situation is that most (all?) of the traditional forms of limitation statute in the common jurisdictions have been held not to apply to breach of fiduciary duty.

Although they are claims for compensatory damages, not restitutionary or unjust enrichment recovery, the various Indian Residential Schools class actions probably fit your description of actions brought seeking restitution, in the sense of payment, for historic wrongs.

Those actions - brought against various religious orders and primarily the government of Canada - were settled recently. Here are some links:

http://www.irsr.gc.ca/english/dispute_resolution_class_action_notice.html
http://www.iacobucci.gc.ca/english/pdf/Indian_Residential_Schools_Settlement_Agreement.PDF
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii41673/2006canlii41673.html

The last link is to one court decision approving the settlement which gives you some flavour. The first link is the Canada site which will take you to many links.

I suspect others reading this can give you more information.

On land claims, here's the home site for the Indian Claims Commission.

There's a recent Ontario action which might interest you and provide leads.

Here's the cite: Whitefish Lake Band of Indians v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 744 (CanLII). This is the first 7 paras. which summarize the situation so that you can tell if you're interested.

[1] The Crown breached its fiduciary duty to the Whitefish Lake Band of Indians 120 years ago. The issue on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of compensation for that breach. The facts of this case are straightforward. Its resolution is not.

[2] Whitefish occupies a reserve near Sudbury. In 1886 Whitefish surrendered the timber rights on its reserve to the Crown, which then sold these rights for $316. In 2002, Whitefish sued the Crown for damages for an improvident sale. Shortly before the trial, the Crown admitted that it breached its fiduciary duty by failing to obtain a fair value for Whitefish’s timber rights.

[3] The trial judge, Blenus Wright J., was then asked to assess Whitefish’s compensation for the Crown’s admitted breach. To do so, he had to determine two issues: first, what was the fair value of the timber rights in 1886; and second, how is that fair value to be assessed in 2005, the date of trial.

[4] On the first issue, the trial judge valued Whitefish’s timbers right in 1886 at $31,600. He did so by choosing the highest price paid for comparable timber at a public auction. On the second issue, the trial judge assessed Whitefish’s compensation at $1,095,888. In doing so he took into account that the Crown had not profited from its breach of duty and that it had no legal obligation to pay prejudgment interest until 1992. He adjusted the fair value of the timber rights for inflation between 1886 and 1992, and awarded simple interest on that adjusted amount from 1992 to 2005.

[5] Whitefish appeals the trial judge’s valuation on the first issue and the Crown cross-appeals. Whitefish contends that the trial judge erred by failing to accept reliable evidence from its own expert, who placed the value of the timber rights in 1886 at $50,000. The Crown contends that the trial judge erred by failing to use a weighted average of the valuations of its expert, which would have produced a figure of $16,000.

[6] On the second issue, Whitefish, supported by the intervenors, contends that the trial judge erred in three related ways. First, it says that the trial judge erred by failing to compensate it in equity for its lost opportunity to have the $31,600 invested for its benefit, and to have the use of the investment income; second, it says that the trial judge erred in law by holding that he could not include compound interest as an element of equitable compensation; and, third, it says that the trial judge’s finding that the sale proceeds would have been “dissipated” is contrary to the terms of the surrender, the provisions of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 43, and the principles of equitable compensation, and is unsupported by the evidence. Whitefish claims that an award that fairly compensates it for the Crown’s breach of fiduciary duty would be in the range of $23 million. The Crown contends that the trial judge’s use of inflation and simple prejudgment interest achieved a “fair, equitable and proportionate award” of compensation in an historical claim.

[7] On the first issue, I would not give effect either to Whitefish’s appeal or the Crown’s cross-appeal. The trial judge did not err in principle in valuing the timber rights in 1886 at $31,600 and I would defer to his valuation. On the second issue, however, I agree with Whitefish’s three arguments. I would allow the appeal on this issue and set aside the trial judge’s award. Because the record is insufficient, this court cannot substitute its own award for that of the trial judge. I would order a new hearing to determine the equitable compensation to which Whitefish is entitled.

You might also want to look at Authorson v Canada. You'll find a synopsis, here.

You can get to pdf versions of the 3 court citations I've given you by changing the suffix of the URL to .pdf