MOHAWK+GRAND RIVER

Gazette No. 64 — Memorandum of Fact and Law

Be it known and placed on record: That the Memorandum of Fact and Law in support of the Application for Writ of Mandamus is hereby registered in the Gazette as Gazette No. 64.

I. Part I — Constitutional Foundation and Standing

The Memorandum establishes the constitutional foundation of the Application in five parts. Part I establishes the deponent’s standing as Lower Mohawk of Grand River, Turtle Clan, and the constitutional chain of the Haldimand Proclamation. The six-instrument chain: 1779 Pledge → 1784 Haldimand Proclamation → 1789 Dorchester Order-in-Council → 1791 Legislative Council Report → 1796 Simcoe Proclamation → 1850 Proclamation (Exhibit A5-A).

II. Part II — The Administrative Gap

Director Petoran’s letter of 1 April 2026 confirmed the administrative gap. The Memorandum establishes that the Director has not merely failed to record the Haldimand interest — he has confirmed in writing that no mechanism exists to do so. This converts the question from a discretionary administrative matter to a constitutional one: the Director is required by law to consider any request to record a s.109 interest, and the absence of a mechanism to do so is unconstitutional.

III. Part III — Mandamus Jurisdiction

The conditions for mandamus are met: (a) there is a public legal duty to perform an act (recording the s.109 interest); (b) the duty is clear and specific; (c) the respondent has failed to perform it; (d) the applicant has a legal right to the performance; and (e) there is no other adequate remedy. Kirk v. Morris, 40 Ala. 225 (1866) establishes the mandamus remedy for analogous administrative gaps. Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938 establishes that where there is a right there is a remedy.

IV. Part IV — Law and Argument

Governing authorities: Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold [1903] AC 73 (JCPC) — Crown grants contingent upon surrender of prior Indian interest; R. v. Desautel, 2021 SCC 17 — hereditary rights run to members of the beneficiary class by descent; Ontario (AG) v. Restoule 2024 SCC 27 — Crown cannot dishonourably breach treaty obligations; Manitoba Language Rights [1985] 1 SCR 721 — void ab initio effect of unconstitutional instruments; Moore v. Sweet 2018 SCC 52; Air Canada v. M&L Travel [1993] 3 SCR 787; Reference re Manitoba Language Rights; J.D. Irving v. Wolastoqey Nation 2025 NBCA 129.

V. Part IV.I — Request for Judicial Notice

The Memorandum requests judicial notice of five categories under Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 593:

1. Public Statutes — Statute of Anne 1710 (9 Anne c. 20); 13 and 14 Vict. Ch. 74 (1850 Indian Protection Act / Lower Canada); Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982
2. Crown Instruments — Haldimand Pledge (1779); Haldimand Proclamation (25 October 1784); Dorchester Order-in-Council (9 November 1789); Legislative Council Report (1791); Simcoe Proclamation (1796); Proclamation of 8 November 1850, certified by the Secretary of State of Canada 13 March 1964 (Liber AA, Folio 543, Exhibit A5-A)
3. Parliamentary Proceedings under Pepper v. Hart — HC Deb 06 March 1922 (Churchill); House of Commons of Canada 5 April 1909 (Frank Oliver); House of Commons of Canada 11 May 1914 (Frank Oliver)
4. Official Governmental Correspondence — Petoran letter 1 April 2026 (Exhibit B2); Jeffrey Lem concurrent registry acknowledgment 2021 (Exhibit B1); Burgos letter 25 May 2026 (Exhibit C70)
5. Historical Facts — Stone 1838 (Vol. II, p. 415, Exhibit A7-A) on the exclusive benefit of the Mohawk Nation; Holmes and Associates on Sir John Johnson’s receipt of wampum belt diplomacy in 1798 (AANC-INAC, Government of Canada cat. R32-492-1993-1, Exhibit A20); the Two Row Wampum (Kaswentha) as the foundational diplomatic instrument

The Crown cannot resile from its own instruments.