in Uncategorised

Buckshee Agreement

The context and history of this dispute is complex and lengthy. Many of them are undisputed and include hundreds of documents that have been admitted as evidence by agreement and that usefully explain the chronology of events. The key question from which all other claims and counter-claims originate is whether or not companies enter the country. The combination of relevant legislation, established customary law and agreed facts leads to the inevitable conclusion that companies are entering the country. Neither the group nor any member of the group may enter into legally binding leases and, to the extent provided for, the contracts are. These informal agreements (commonly referred to as “buckshee leasing contracts”) are illegal and unenforceable. While the companies acknowledge that they do not have the legal right to own the land and creek Run Park, they claim that they have relied on repeated assurances and agreements that a helmet is formally agreed and registered. They also claim damages and other forms of legal protection against the plaintiffs on the basis of the principles of equity of the effect of debt, undue enrichment and Quantum Meruit. . The meeting in Wendake, Quebec, brought together 23 participants from 16 First Nations. The Supreme Court of British Columbia noted that the lease against the group was unenforceable and that the person was not entitled to the rental unit. Buckshee`s leases are contrary to Indian law.

The court decided that, in order to have an enforceable right, the member must possess either a certificate of ownership or a lease granted in accordance with Indian law. In the absence of the ministry`s authorization, the tenant cannot enforce the lease against the group. The court ruled that the person had committed a home invasion and ordered that the group have the right to possess freely. . The applicants are assisted by the OKIB and also have the right to own the land in accordance with the certificates of ownership issued by the Crown, pursuant to section 20(1) of the Indian Act. The applicants state that the companies have no legal right or other power to be in the countryside and that they have therefore committed a home invasion and seek various forms of damages. . Compared to other provinces, Quebec does not have many First Nations participating in LRLEmp or other land regimes such as First Nation Land Management (FNLM). Many participants stated that they wanted to manage their own reserves, but did not meet the current admission criteria for RLEMP.

Others spoke of the lack of support they received when they moved from the Indian Act to the development and management of their own laws and fonal laws. . . .