-
Case Title & Citation
Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335. -
Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)
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.
The Supreme Court held:
-
The Crown owed a fiduciary duty to the Band when dealing with surrendered lands.
-
The Crown breached that duty by acting dishonestly and contrary to the Band’s interests.
-
The Band was entitled to compensation.
-
Historical & Legal Context
Guerin is foundational in Canadian Aboriginal law. It established that the Crown’s unilateral control over Indigenous lands carries trust-like obligations, not just political discretion. -
Key Legal Principles Identified in the Case
-
The Crown is a fiduciary when managing Indigenous land interests.
-
Breach of fiduciary duty is actionable, with damages.
-
Indigenous land rights are sui generis and not reducible to ordinary property law.
-
Implications for Haldimand, Loyalist, and Mohawk Questions
-
Guerin supports the view that Haldimand lands—held by the Crown “under His protection” as refuge—impose fiduciary obligations on Canada and Ontario.
-
Allowing unauthorized disposals, roads, and taxation regimes may constitute long-running breaches of that duty.
-
Points of Interest to Mohawk of Grand River Posterity
-
Guerin helps reframe the conversation from “political grievance” to legal breach: the Crown’s mishandling of Haldimand lands is not just unfortunate; it may be an ongoing fiduciary violation.
-
It supports claims for accounting, compensation, and structural remedies tied to mismanagement of the tract.
-
Unresolved Questions / Future Research Directions
-
How far can Guerin be extended beyond Indian Act reserves to Crown-purchased refuges like Haldimand?
-
Could courts recognize a specific fiduciary duty to Mohawk Loyalist posterity, distinct from Indian Act band entities?
-
Sources
-
Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335.
-
Aboriginal law commentary on fiduciary duties.


Leave a Reply