Despite intensifying damage from climate change, our governments are implementing a corporate agenda reliant on fossil fuels and resource extraction, while drastically eroding the ability of the public to fight back. In Ontario, Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, empowers ministers to override regulations to accelerate development. The Canadian government has done the same with the One Canadian Economy Act (Bill C-5): Part 1 is the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, and part 2 is the Building Canada Act. It made this even worse with Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill.
Indigenous Peoples in Ontario say these bills ignore their treaties, are unconstitutional and are destroying the very environment on which we all depend. They are asserting their responsibility and right to protect their lands and waters in the courts.
The following summary is of significant recent court cases (and a few quasi-legal actions) led by and affecting First Nations (FNs) across Ontario.
Treaty No. 9 Jurisdiction – filed April 2023. Eleven Treaty 9 FNs have filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) challenging the Ontario and Canadian governments, arguing that those FNs never ceded jurisdiction over their lands. Treaty Nine makes up almost 2/3 of Ontario. The Plaintiff FNs want to be respected as the final decision-makers as to where, when, and how resources are extracted on their territories. They intend to prove that Treaty No. 9 protects their rights to sovereignty, a way of life, and jurisdiction to protect their land. In mid-December 2025, Ontario filed “a motion to strike” this claim as well as the one discussed below. The matter was sent to Case Management for ongoing supervision by a judge and the Statement of Claim was amended and refiled on February 13, 2026. [i]
The plaintiffs are the Attawapiskat First Nation, Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Aroland First Nation, Constance Lake First Nation, Eabametoong First Nation, Fort Albany First Nation, Ginoogaming First Nation, Kashechewan First Nation, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation and the Neskantaga First Nation. Their lawyer is Kate Kempton of the Woodwards law firm.
Ontario Bill 5, federal Bill 5 opposition. In July 2025, nine FNs announced they were launching a legal challenge against Ontario’s Bill 5 and similar federal legislation (Bill C-5). They argue that these Acts allow the government to fast-track the Ring of Fire[ii] and other egregious developments, posing a “clear and present danger” to their rights. They say these bills are unconstitutional. The Notice of Application was filed in the SCJ in Toronto on September 15, 2025, and an amended Notice of Application was filed on March 17, 2026.[iii]
A number of FNs have joined as plaintiffs since the original filing, and there may be more added in the future. The FN plaintiffs are now: Alderville, Apitipi Anicinapek, Aroland, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Ginoogaming, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Wabauskang, Walpole Island, Kashechewan, Mississaugas of the Credit, Wapekeka and Wunnumin Lake.
The Application requests detailed outcomes (relief) related to FNs’ territories, such as: declarations that governments failed to consult and act honourably, damages of $100 M, an order that all steps taken by either government under this legislation should be void, injunctions to prevent governments from taking steps before trial including halting of any special economic zones (SEZs), and a declaration that the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) applies to legislative decision-making. Lawyers for the FN applicants are Kate Kempton and Nicholas Daube of Woodwards.
An excellent recent CBC article about the case discusses these issues.
Related News: It should be noted that Marten Falls, Webequie and Aroland have all signed “partnership” agreements with Ontario in the past year. Although the grants are for important community infrastructure ($39.5 M to each of Marten Falls and Webequie, and $20 M to Aroland), the chiefs appear to have agreed to drop any opposition to the three connected roads required to open the Ring of Fire. That said, it does not appear that the court cases discussed here were affected by these agreements.
The interest of these FNs is in community access roads and cash needed for their impoverished communities, not necessarily for the Ring of Fire mining projects. Despite how the Premier is presenting these agreements, the FNs have NOT said they support mining in the area. In fact, Marten Falls has filed a suit opposing mining on their territory (see below).
Aroland Chief Sonny Gagnon, whose First Nation reserve straddles Highway 643, which the Province hopes to connect to the Ring of Fire, told the following to APTN (the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network) after signing the Aroland agreement:
“We’re only talking the Marten Fall’s community access road and that’s where it ends. It’s not leading to any Ring of Fire unless the other communities are in favor of moving the project forward.”
As of yet, there are no feasibility studies for any of the deposits in the Ring of Fire, except for Eagle’s Nest, which is now 12 years out of date, and never did include the costs of bringing in power and roads to the area.
Interventions in this case. On December 15, 2025, grassroots leaders from Attawapiskat FN (Ramon Kataquapit & Michel Koostachin) – represented by Legal Action for Nature’s Defense (LAND) – filed an application to intervene, claiming Bill 5 ignores Indigenous Natural Law and perpetuates environmental racism. The motion to intervene is awaiting a hearing and no decision by the court has been made yet about whether they will be added as intervenors.
There is also an NGO grouping that is considering an intervention. Members of the intervention group now include a few members of the Coalition to End Line 5, a joint US-Canada environmental and Indigenous coalition which supports the Michigan government. SCAN! is a member of the Coalition but not part of the intervention group. The Coalition wants to shut down an aging Enbridge gas pipeline due to risks of a spill in the Straits of Mackinac. Canada has invoked the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty, arguing that shutting down the line would violate Canadian rights under that Treaty. In Canada, the Line 5 Coalition includes the Anishinabek Nation (the political representative for 39 First Nations), Climate Action and 8th Fire Rising.
Other Legal Indigenous Cases of Importance
The Missinabie Cree Treaty Nine Annuity and Disparity case is a class action representing 37 Treaty Nine FNs suing the federal and provincial governments for $10 billion on the basis that their treaty payments for resource extraction have not been increased from the $4 per person per year initially “negotiated” in 1909 and 1923. Treaty No. 9 is also known at the James Bay Treaty. This case is based on the successful Robinson treaty case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2024.
Marten Falls Historical Claim (2025): Marten Falls First Nation filed a lawsuit in August 2025 seeking to halt mining-related activities in the Ring of Fire. This claim specifically targets historical river diversions and dams created in the 1940s/50s and argues that new infrastructure projects (like a proposed road) are being pushed through without its consent. As noted above, Marten Falls is also a key proponent of building one of the new roads to the Ring of Fire and has received almost $40 M from the Province In a “partnership agreement,” not to mention the millions of dollars they have received as a proponent in the Environmental Assessment process for the building of the new Community Access Road.
A specific claim by Attawapiskat FN against Ontario made on June 6, 2023, asserted that this FN has an outstanding reserve entitlement under terms of Treaty 9. On July 11, 2023, this FN was advised by Ontario that it will complete an assessment of the claimant’s submission within 3 years. The Attawapiskat reserve is only 1.7 km2 in size.
Neskantaga Consultation Case (2021-2023). Neskantaga First Nation sued the Ontario government over “flawed” consultations regarding one of the proposed access roads to the Ring of Fire. The Ontario SCJ dismissed this case in October 2023, finding – on a technicality – that they could not make a declaration about the adequacy of the consultation.
Grassy Narrows Challenge of Ontario Mining Act (2024). The Grassy Narrows First Nation initiated legal action against Ontario over the Province’s “free-entry” mining system, which allows staking claims without first consulting with local FNs. Grassy Narrows argues that this system violates section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, which specifically recognizes and affirms “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples.” The courts have ruled that this requires meaningful consultation and accommodation before activities that could impact Indigenous rights can take place. Under the current free-entry system, an FN is only notified after a claim has been granted, which allows the claim holder to establish a third- party interest on the land, begin invasive exploratory work such as clearing trees and digging trenches – this without obtaining the FN’s free, prior, and informed consent. If successful, the legal action could require Ontario to rescind thousands of existing mining claims that have been staked on Grassy Narrows’ traditional territory without its consent and could force the Province to reform its mining laws. The FN is represented in this case by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA).
On August 12, 2024, six other FNs filed similar lawsuits challenging free entry. They include Aroland, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Ginoogaming and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, and are also represented by Woodwards.
These are two of a number of cases in Canada brought against some provinces and territories (Yukon, British Columbia and Quebec) in an effort to challenge free entry. Lexpert[iv] writes as follows:
“[In 2025 the BC Court of Appeal issued its decision on] Gitxaala, a challenge to the “free entry mining” system under British Columbia’s Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292. Under this system, “free miners” are allowed to register claims to mineral rights on Crown lands without any consultation with the First Nations in whose territories those claims are located. Once a claim is registered, it entitles the holder of the claim to conduct exploratory activities. Two FNs, Gitxaala and Ehattesaht, argued that this system was both a breach of the duty to consult and inconsistent with UNDRIP.
The BC Court of Appeal agreed, finding that British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44 (“the BC DRIP Act”) had incorporated UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate effect and the free entry mining system was inconsistent with both the duty to consult and UNDRIP.”
Kebaowek and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The following commentary is also from Lexpert:
“The first important decision of the year on the status of UNDRIP and the effect of these implementing laws is Kebaowek, a judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”) to approve an application to allow a near-surface nuclear disposal facility at Chalk River within Kebaowek First Nation’s territory. For the past 75 years, the site has been used as a temporary storage site for nuclear waste. The proposed facility would permanently dispose of the existing waste at the site, as well as allow more low-level nuclear waste to be stored there in a manner more aligned with modern standards.
Kebaowek argued that as a result of the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021 c 14 (“the federal UNDRIP Act”), the CNSC had an obligation to secure their free, prior and informed consent pursuant to UNDRIP before approving the project, and that this obligation also informed what it meant for the CNSC to satisfy its duty to consult and accommodate them. The Federal Court held that the CNSC had jurisdiction to consider UNDRIP and erred in failing to do so. As a result of the federal UNDRIP Act, UNDRIP now attracted the “presumption of conformity” – a presumption that both statute law and the Constitution, including s. 35 rights, should be interpreted to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with UNDRIP.”
While the decision of the Federal Court did not revoke the licence to construct the radioactive waste facility, Justice Blackhawk’s decision did direct that there be renewed consultation efforts in light of the nuclear regulator’s failure to consider UNDRIP. These consultation efforts are ongoing to meet the court-ordered deadline of September 2026. The appeal of this case was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in the Fall of 2025 and a decision is pending. This is a case of high importance to watch and could be destined for the Supreme Court of Canada.
A related case, where Kebaowek First Nation is also among the parties, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd v AG. of Canada challenges the validity of the species-at-risk permit at the Chalk River nuclear site. It too was heard by the Federal Court in the Fall of 2025 and its decision is still pending.
Kitigan Zibi First Nation situated in Quebec, but with historic land use in Ontario including the federal Parliament buildings, filed a lawsuit in late 2016 (Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation) in Ontario Superior Court. The 2016 claim covers areas of downtown Ottawa, including Parliament Hill, the Supreme Court of Canada and Lebreton Flats. This claim recently met a hiccup on a technicality, as the Anishinabek Algonquins did not have permission to file the claim in Ontario when two of the Algonquin First Nations had not passed a Band Council Resolution supporting it. Of these two, only one is a recognized FN (Pikwakanagan); the other is the Algonquins of Ontario.[v] The substantive case is scheduled to be heard in 2028.
The Algonquins also filed a claim in late 2025 in Quebec Superior Court covering their traditional territory in Quebec, which is still proceeding. The Algonquins have never signed a secession treaty with Ontario.
Alderville First Nation passed a landmark resolution granting legal personhood to Rice Lake (Ontario) in November 2025, establishing it as an ecological entity with nine fundamental rights, including the right to exist, thrive, and be free from pollution. Alderville is the home community of noted writer Leanne Betasamosake Simpson. Led by Chief Taynar Simpson, this initiative aims to protect the ecologically vulnerable lake – a vital, historical source of food and cultural significance for the Mississaugas—by enabling legal action on its own behalf. A Guardians Council is being established to oversee the Lake’s protection.
This resolution, presented at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30 in Brazil[vi]) in November 2025, marks a major shift towards recognizing nature’s independent legal rights in Canada.
Both adequate housing and clean water have been recently declared by the Federal Court to be fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government. The FN drinking water class action decision in Shamattawa First Nation v. Canada was issued on December 5, 2025 (2025 FC 1927). On the same date, it also released its decision in the FN housing class action, St. Theresa Point First Nation v. His Majesty the King (2025 FC 1926).
Conclusion
First Nations in Ontario, which include some of the most impoverished and dispossessed Indigenous Peoples in Canada, are increasingly fighting back in the courts: defending their people, lands and waters as the provincial and federal governments seek to undermine their treaties and rights.
Whether the settler courts decide to honour their treaties will depend upon the legal and factual findings of the judges who hear these cases. At this point in history, FNs’ courageous stand against undemocratic legislation like Bill 5 and C-5 and their insistence on the right to say “no” to ecosystem-destroying developments may be the most important line of defence for all of us.
_____________________
[i] Court File No: CV-23-00701700-0000, amended February 13, 2026.
[ii] According to Wikipedia, the Ring of Fire is a mineral-rich crescent-shaped geographical region in the James Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario and approximately 5,000 km2 in area. Most of the chromite, nickel, copper, platinum group elements, gold, zinc, and palladium is located in a 20 km strip of land.
[iii] Application file CV-25-00747434-0000.
[iv] Since 1994 Lexpert has been a Canadian publisher of legal news, rankings and business information. It is currently owned by Key Media, a global media and events company.
[v] According to Shady Hafex, the “Algonquins of Ontario” is an organization which was established to negotiate with the Crown on behalf of numerous Indigenous communities in Ontario. Most of them are not recognized as First Nations.
[vi] A Conference of the Parties (COP) involves the countries which signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, a binding agreement under international law. The first COP was held in Berlin in 1995.
*****
Joan Kuyek is a community and environmental organizer and activist and Co-Chair of SCAN!’s Indigenous Solidarity Committee.