MOHAWK+GRAND RIVER

Gazette No. 66 — Demand of the Attorney General — Five Constitutional Questions

Be it demanded of the Crown: That the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario each state their constitutional position on the following five questions within thirty days of the date of this instrument: (i)

Whether the Haldimand Proclamation of 25 October 1784 constitutes a valid and subsisting Crown covenant setting apart the Grand River corridor for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the Mohawk Nation and their posterity forever. (ii)

Whether s. 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 preserves the Haldimand Proclamation interest as an interest other than that of the Province at Confederation, such that the Province of Ontario received the corridor encumbered by that prior covenant. (iii)

Whether Crown grants and domestic instruments purporting to convey, regulate, or otherwise dispose of land within the corridor, without first discharging or superseding the Haldimand covenant, are void ab initio under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold [1903] AC 73 (JCPC). (iv)

Whether the absence of any mechanism in Ontario's land titles registry to record or give effect to the Haldimand Crown covenant interest constitutes an unconstitutional administrative gap, as confirmed by the Director of Land Registry Services Branch in his letter of 1 April 2026. (v)

Whether the Government of Canada acknowledges that it has no right to interfere with the Haldimand Crown covenant, as confirmed by the Honourable Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, in the House of Commons of Canada on 5 April 1909 and 11 May 1914. Crown Response On 25 May 2026, six days past the 30-day response deadline, Maria Burgos, Counsel and Special Advisor to the Regional Director General, Department of Justice Canada, responded. The Crown's response did not answer any of the five constitutional questions. It directed the Secretariat to the Six Nations of the Grand River litigation as if the Band Council represents the Mohawk Nation's distinct Haldimand Beneficiary Class interests. That conflation was formally rejected in the Secretariat's reply of 27 May 2026 (SG1202-260527-000070). The Burgos letter constitutes the fourteenth documented instance of Crown acknowledgment without resolution in the 230-year avoidance pattern.