The cases collected in this section are not random citations. Together they map out the legal landscape that surrounds the Haldimand Proclamation, Mohawk Loyalist posterity, and the Grand River today. Some are early decisions that misread Haldimand through an “Aboriginal usufruct” lens (like Jackson v. Wilkes). Others recognize fiduciary duties, treaty-like instruments, unjust enrichment, constructive trusts, and the honour of the Crown (Guerin, Sioui, Moore v. Sweet, Roncarelli). Still others clarify remedies such as mandamus (McArthur, Vaziri), the limits of state power (Roncarelli, Doody), or the structure of the constitutional order and the Oath of Allegiance (McAteer).
Taken together, these authorities help show that the Grand River problem is not a “grey area” or a purely political grievance. It is a dense, legal problem: a Crown-purchased refuge for Mohawk allies, confirmed in the 1791 constitutional order, later buried under provincial statutes, municipal practice, and Indian Act administration that never properly accounted for the original grant or the Loyalist hereditary framework. This case law archive is meant as a working toolbox for Mohawk posterity, students, counsel, and anyone trying to understand how old promises, modern courts, and current jurisdictional crises all fit together on Six Miles Deep.
Additionally, Our case law section brings together key decisions that have been used to define – and sometimes confuse – the legal reality of Six Miles Deep. For the most part, Canadian courts have talked about the Haldimand Tract through the lenses of “Aboriginal rights,” “band councils,” and ordinary Crown land, instead of the specific Mohawk Loyalist refuge that Haldimand, Dorchester, and Simcoe actually describe.
Here we read those cases with fresh eyes. We’re not pretending the courts don’t exist; we’re asking what they say (and don’t say) about Mohawk Loyalist posterity, jurisdiction, taxation, and the honour of the Crown. Each case summary looks at how the decision fits – or fails to fit – with the original grants and oaths that created Six Miles Deep in the first place.
This case concerned an application for mandamus, asking the Federal Court to compel government action. The Federal Court of Appeal clarified when a court should issue mandamus to force a public authority to perform a legal duty.
1. Case Title & Citation Doe ex dem. Jackson v. Wilkes, Court of King’s Bench (Upper Canada), 1835. 2. Decision Summary (Neutral Overview) This case concerned an action of ejectment […]
This case involved disputes over roads and authority on reserve lands in Ontario. Non-Indigenous parties claimed rights of access based on long-standing use and provincial road concepts. Indigenous parties disputed the existence and scope of public rights-of-way.
In the late 19th century, the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario submitted several disputes to arbitration regarding: Which level of government was financially responsible for Indian claims arising under the Robinson Treaties and related arrangements.
This case involved a proposed dam project on the Oldman River in Alberta. Environmental groups argued that federal authorities had to conduct an environmental assessment before approving the project.
The Musqueam Indian Band surrendered reserve land to the Crown for leasing as a golf course. The Crown negotiated lease terms less favourable than those disclosed to the Band and kept the true terms hidden.
This is an ongoing criminal / quasi-criminal proceeding in which the Crown (His Majesty the King) prosecutes Benjamin Doolittle on matters arising within the Grand River / Haldimand Tract.
Kirk v. Morris concerned the interpretation of a deed or will that used the phrase “such other” persons in connection with property rights. The court had to decide who counted within that phrase.
Friedrich Nottebohm, born German, lived many years in Guatemala, and obtained Liechtenstein nationality late in life. During WWII, Guatemala treated him as an enemy alien and seized his property. Liechtenstein took Guatemala to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), seeking diplomatic protection.
Logan v. Styres addressed questions of standing, authority, and representation in matters connected to lands and governance along the Grand River. The Court declined to recognize claims rooted in traditional or hereditary authority and instead treated modern statutory and administrative bodies as th…
McAteer and others challenged the Canadian citizenship oath, arguing that swearing allegiance to the Queen violated their freedom of expression and conscience.
This case involved competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The deceased originally named his then-wife, Michelle Moore, as irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
Case Title & CitationR. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207, Supreme Court of Canada. Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)This case concerned whether two Métis hunters in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, had […]
Case Title & CitationR. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody, [1994] 1 AC 531 (UK House of Lords). Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)This case concerned life-sentenced […]
Members of the Huron-Wendat Nation were charged with violating provincial park regulations while conducting ceremonies and cutting wood in Jacques-Cartier Park. They invoked an 18th-century agreement between British authorities and their Nation.
Raimondi involved land subject to heritage or trust restrictions in favour of the Ontario Heritage Trust. The private owner disputed the extent of those restrictions and the Trust’s control.
Case Title & CitationReference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, Supreme Court of Canada. Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)This reference concerned the fact that Manitoba had enacted almost all […]
Police officers entered private property and an altercation followed. The question was whether their presence was lawful or whether they had become trespassers.
This case involved Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah’s Witness supporter. Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis ordered the cancellation of Roncarelli’s liquor licence as punishment for posting bail for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Case Title & CitationSouthport Corporation v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd., [1954] 2 Q.B. 182 (Eng. C.A.). Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)Esso’s ship discharged oil that drifted and damaged the foreshore and […]
Case Title & CitationVaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159 (Federal Court). Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)The applicant in Vaziri sought mandamus to compel immigration authorities to […]
Copyright 2025 – Mohawk University (2025). Crown Plus: Restoring Lawful Continuity under the Haldimand Proclamation. SixMilesDeep.com.
