|
Indigenous - Residential Schools. Hill v. Canada
In Hill v. Canada (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from an earlier dismissed "order extending the time to file claims under an agreement settling a class action", here in an indigenous context.
Here the court comments on the history of 'residential schools':[14] Although the law is what I have said, it arises in this case in a deeply tragic context. The Supreme Court has said, with understatement, that "“we cannot recount with much pride the treatment accorded to the [Indigenous] people of this country”": R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 at 1103. In this case, the Federal Court (at para. 11) correctly recognized that residential schools were aimed at "“encourag[ing] the assimilation of Indigenous children into non-Indigenous society”", with many "“Indigenous children [separated] from their parents, families and communities”" and thousands abused physically, emotionally and sexually: see also Canada (Attorney General) v. Fontaine, 2017 SCC 47, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 205 (Fontaine (SCC)) at para. 1; see also Prime Minister Stephen J. Harper. "“Statement of Apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools”", June 11, 2008 (online: Government of Canada ) and the Affidavit of Chief Mark Hill of the Six Nations (Appeal Book, p. 392).
[15] Day schools differed from residential schools. Students returned home at the end of the day at school and were not separated from their families. However, the abuses at such schools were devastating. Chief Mark Hill of the Six Nations put it well in his affidavit:[Day schools were] devastating for Indigenous individuals, families, and communities. Students were regularly subject to horrifying physical and sexual abuse, and were systematically punished and humiliated for nothing more than being who they were: Indigenous children. The negative effects of attending an [Indian Day School] were profound and caused lasting damage [to] our people’s self worth, mental and physical health, and their ability to lead safe and happy lives. [16] Also part of the context is Canada’s objective of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, an objective of paramount importance. This Court described what reconciliation means in some detail in Coldwater First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34, [2020] 3 F.C.R. 3 at paras. 47-50.
|
