At the conclusion of a legal case that has spanned nearly three decades and eight terms of council, the Town of Fort Frances has acknowledged a recent ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding ownership of the lands making up Point Park and announced it will not be appealing the decision.
In a lengthy 72- page ruling issued by Justice J.S. Fregeau on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, the Town of Fort Frances had its claims to the lands that make up the Point Park, as well as claims for financial compensation, dismissed in their entirety. The ruling brings to an end a legal battle between the town and Agency One, comprised of Couchiching, Mitaanjigamiing, Naicatchewenin and Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nations, that has been ongoing for 27 years, over the rightful owners of the lands that make up Point Park.
In a press release issued yesterday, Tuesday, June 24, 2025, following Monday night;s regular meeting of town council, the town said it “respectfully acknowledges” the Justice’s decision, believing it to be justified, and announced it would not be seeking to appeal the decision. It also addressed Agency One and the First Nations directly, apologizing for the damage the case has done to their relationships with the Town of Fort Frances over the decades.
“We understand and acknowledge that this litigation has weighed heavily on the hearts and minds of the Indigenous community,” the town’s release said.
“We also acknowledge the financial burden this matter has caused on on our communities. We understand the public’s interest in the cost of this litigation, and will release the total amount in the coming days, once we’ve ensured financial accuracy. We acknowledge and regret the damage done to our relationship with Agency One and the four First Nation communities… Additionally, the toll this litigation took on our Fort Frances residents, our staff and the members of all First Nation communities whose members our municipality serves. We regret that this process unfolded in a manner that resulted in unintentional harm.”
The town noted that “the attitudes and opinions held at the inception of this endeavour are not the same today,” adding that the current council voted unanimously to not appeal the Justice’s decision.
“We are now committed to listening and understanding the history of the Indigenous people in this country, and how best we might move towards reconciliation,” the release said.
“In light of the current circumstance, we hope that the end of this litigation can serve as a starting point in our shared history. Our commitment to learning and progressing as an organization and community is strong and steadfast. We are committed to working with Agency One and all of the First Nations of the Southern region of Treaty Three to help heal the harm of past decisions and work towards a future relationship based on a foundation of mutual respect and open dialogue.”
The town had argued that the agreements struck through the years with the governments of Ontario and Canada has given them ownership of the property, while Agency One argues the land was never sold or given outright but was always the subject of a longterm lease between the Town of Fort Frances that expired in 2009.
Fregeau’s ruling dismissed the town’s claims of ownership, highlighting, among other points, the wording of a 1908 agreement the town claims gives it a “permanent, legal interest” in the lands and saying that he was “not persuaded” by the town’s argument.
“I am not persuaded, despite the very able arguments by counsel for the Town, that the 1908 OIC (Order in Council) can be interpreted as an actual conveyance by Ontario of a permanent, legal interest in an undescribed parcel of the First Nations’ reserve land directly to the Town, for no consideration,” Fregeau wrote in his decision.
“Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the 1908 OIC. It is also inconsistent with the express terms of the 1908 Surrender, pursuant to which the reserve lands were surrendered to the Crown “to sell… upon such terms as [Canada] may deem most conducive” to the welfare of the First Nations, “reserving the right to [the First Nations]… hold any future gatherings” on the surrendered lands. I accept the submissions of the First Nations, Canada and Ontario that the Town’s suggested interpretation is, in the circumstances, wholly contrary to the honour of the Crown and the Crown’s fiduciary obligations to the First Nations when dealing with surrendered reserve lands.
The justice also dismissed two additional claims made by the town for damages for “breach of promise and agreement, and/or breach of duty” between it and the governments of Canada and Ontario in the event that the justice’s decision did not side with the town, asking for $50,000,000 for failing to comply with the September 1908 Order in Council, and a further $2,000,000 as reimbursement for “capital improvements undertaken by the Town for Point Park on the basis of unjust enrichment.” Fregeau said he found “no trust has been established on the record” that shows either government was in a fiduciary relationship with the town that would give merit to the town’s claim of any breach of trust.
In a press release following the justice’s report being released, Agency One, which is comprised of Couchiching, Mitaanjigamiing, Naicatchewenin and Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nations, welcomed the decision and called for the town and governments to work together with Agency One to move forward in “building a future grounded in respectful dialogue, environmental stewardship, and shared community wellbeing.”
“This is not a moment for triumph, it is a moment for clarity,” said Agency One Chiefs and Councils.
“This decision reaffirms what our Elders, leaders, and communities have always known – that the promises made to our people cannot be overridden by convenience or assumptions of entitlement… We call upon municipal, provincial, and federal governments to reflect on the consequences of this case and to work with us — not around us — as we move forward. The harm of past decisions, made without our consent, must not be repeated.”
