Six Nations to receive long-awaited answers in lands claim lawsuit Crown to divulge answers on discovery, agrees to pay Six Nations legal fees by Paul Baswick Tekawenake News http://www.tekanews.com/ BRANTFORD ? After exhausting two previous appeals to limit disclosure of particulars in its defence, the federal government has agreed to answer questions of discovery relating to Six Nations' lands claim lawsuit. In a deal struck with Six Nations lawyers in Ontario Superior Court in Brantford Monday morning, lawyers from the crown agreed to respond to questions posed by Six Nations regarding Canada's position on historical statements relevant to the case. Under Monday's agreement, the Crown must submit its long-awaited answers in writing to Six Nations' legal representatives, the firm of Blake Cassels & Graydon, by Oct. 2, 2000. Six Nations will have until Oct. 10 to review Canada's answers and to add comments to the government draft. The federal government's final sworn response must then be submitted to Mr. Justice Kent by Oct. 17. Crown lawyers also agreed to pay the legal costs which Six Nations has incurred in its lawsuit to date. That figure, says Six Nations legal representative Burton Kellock, is "in excess of $100,000." Six Nations first launched legal attempts to force answers from the Crown early last year. In May, 1999, Six Nations appeared before Mr. Justice Kent to obtain an order from the court compelling Canada to answer all discovery questions and full particulars asked by Six Nations that Canada had failed to answer. Mr. Justice Kent ruled in Six Nations' favour two months later, ordering the Crown to provide complete and proper answers to the questions being posed. The Crown, however, did not comply with the order, refusing to state its position on historical statements vital to the case, including the statement that "the members of the Six Nations are the descendants of the Iroquois people whose ancestral lands and territories were located in what is now New York State." Following Mr. Justice Kent's order of July 27, 1999, the Crown launched an appeal in Ontario Divisional Court which was unanimously dismissed on April 12, 2000. The Crown then served notice of its intention to seek to appeal this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That motion for appeal was dismissed on July 18, 2000. The answers which have been offered by the Crown to date, says Kellock, have not adequately addressed the questions asked on behalf of Six Nations. "They gave us a whole bunch of words as purported answers to the questions we had asked, which in our judgment was a tactic to delay and avoid answering questions," says Kellock. Although the Crown has now agreed to provide the answers by Oct. 2, Kellock says he is uncertain if their responses will be any more satisfactory than they have been in the past. "You may as well ask me what the weather will be like on Friday," he said. Kellock says before his firm had reached an agreement with the Crown, Six Nations' lawyers had been attempting to get Mr. Justice Kent to strike Canada's statement of defence by finding the government in contempt. When asked why his legal team opted to reach an agreement with the government rather than pursue the charge of contempt, Kellock says there is a reason, but that he would prefer that the reason not yet be printed in newspapers. "Sometimes you have to compromise," says Kellock of the decision to strike a deal with the Crown. Phil Monture, Director of Six Nations Land Claims, says Monday's agreement shows the government is running out of options in skirting questions of discovery. "It's taken a long time to paint them into a corner," says Monture. "The court is catching on to the (Crown's) tactics of delay, delay, delay." [In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.]