Leasing by Seasonal Cottagers

Leases were between Her Majesty, as represented by the Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the individual lessees. Rental amounts were paid to the Receiver General of Canada.

Each lessee was required to construct a dwelling with a minimum area of 480 square feet in floor space (clause 22). The lease allowed 30 days for lessees to remove buildings following expiration of the lease (clause 11). The original lease term expired in 1973 with no renewal lease ready to be signed but cottagers were told a new lease would be coming.

A letter was sent to lessees from the Cape Croker Reserve Band Office clarifying matters such as fire protection, service fee, garbage collection, police protection, road maintenance, and visiting rights after October 31st. With respect to the latter, it stated, Cape Croker Council have agreed to permit lessees to visit their cottages during off season for occasional week-ends and to inspect for damages from snow, trees etc., during winter months.

Throughout the 20 year lease period, various cottages were bought and sold and those leases were assigned to new owners. The lease term expired in 1993 with no new lease ready to be signed but cottagers were told by the federal Department of Indian Affairs and by representatives of the Chippewas of Nawash Band that a new lease would be issued.

The 1993-95 lease provided to cottagers in mid-1996, included the same significant clauses as the previous 1973-93 lease:

. . . in the event it is decided that the land shall not be available for cottage lease purposes at the expiration of the term herein created, it is agreed that the Lessee shall be given not less than 12 months notice of such intention by Her Majesty's representative, (Clause#30).

  . . . the Lessee will have the right, under the supervision of Her Majesty's representative, to remove any buildings erected by him on the demised land, provided that if they are not so removed within thirty days following the expiration of the lease, they shall revert to and become property of Her Majesty . . . (Clause#15).

1995 - 2005
- Representatives from Indian Affairs and from the Band continued to communicate to cottagers that a new long-term lease would be issued. Indian Affairs communicated this verbally and in writing to various cottagers on various occasions.

- Indian and Northern Affairs Canada continued to collect rent from lessees on an annual basis.

- The Band continued to collect service fees from lessees on an annual basis (for police and fire protection, seasonal garbage collection, and road maintenance).

- Cottages were bought and sold, with notice being provided to Indian and Northern Affair Canada and to the Band. Assignments of leases continued to be permitted but not registered; information was given that they would be registered when the new lease was executed.  Assignment fees were paid to the federal government as per the 1993-95 lease conditions.

- Various cottagers who purchased during this period received copies of a draft lease proposed to apply to the period 1995 - 2015. The draft leases proposed to allow cottagers to remove buildings if leasing were to end, as had previous leases.

Part 2

Permits

2006
Lessees sent cheques for annual rent, as usual, to the Receiver General of Canada. Most were not cashed and were returned in May 2006.

After the sign was erected, and in the latter half of May, cottagers received Permits, retroactively, from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to occupy the lands during  May 1 - Oct. 31, 2006. The Permit was accompanied by a letter dated May 17, 2006 indicating that leases had expired, and no authority to issue a new lease has been given. . . . Please be advised that this is a temporary permit and contains no renewal clause.

The fee for the 6 month permit was more than double the previous rent with no advance notice of a rent increase having been given.

Sec. 31.1 of the permit stated "If the Permittee: (a) fails to pay the due fees hereunder within 30 days . . . the Minister may, by notice to the Permittee, declare the Period ended . . . and the Permittee's rights hereunder will absolutely cease, without right of re-entry or any other act or legal proceedings . . ."

Several cottagers called or visited Indian Affairs or wrote letters inquiring further about the situation and expressing concerns. Concerns regarded the lack of communication as to the new procedure of a permit being issued, lack of advance notice of the sign and rental increase, and the need for winter access to check on and maintain properties over the next winter period. Cottagers were given reassurances that negotiations for a lease were ongoing.

Cottagers were hopeful that the permit and ongoing negotiations meant the long-awaited lease would be provided before the permit expired at the end of October 2006.

July 2006
Lessees were invoiced by the Chippewas of Nawash for the 2006-07 Service Fee.

Oct. 31, 2006
The Permit expired with no communication from Indian Affairs. Prior to the end of October, a gate was installed by the Band at the entrance to the cottage road.

Part 3

Chronology Since Permits Expired

“I am directed to tell you that negotiations are ongoing between the

Regional Director General for Ontario and the Chief and Council for

Chippewas of the Nawash. A face to face meeting is scheduled for Monday November 27.

Further information may be available after that.

We appreciate the frustration felt by cottagers and are doing what we can to come to a resolution as soon as possible.”

The letter provided no information about any issues that led to the abrupt end of leasing or the position being taken regarding entitlement to the cottages.  This was the first notice received by the cottagers that they would be required to vacate the cottages and that they would not be allowed to remove the cottages which they had built or purchased.

A large majority of cottage owners (from 64 of the lots), retained the same legal counsel. Through counsel they requested an extension of the winter deadline to remove belongings and requested a meeting with other parties to determine if a resolution was possible for cottage owners to continue leasing at Hope Bay.

After repeated requests, an extension until the end of February was finally confirmed by Indian Affairs on February 8th. However, weather throughout the remainder of February was particularly cold and snowy and a number of cottagers were unable to remove all of their chattels by the deadline.

Some discussion continued among lawyers.

An all-party meeting scheduled for later in February was postponed until March and then cancelled.

Cottagers did not consider that there were ongoing productive discussions moving towards a timely resolution. As a result, late in May, cottagers informed the lawyers for Indian Affairs and the Chippewas of Nawash that they felt the agreement of media restrictions was no longer in place and subsequently issued a news release expressing their frustration.

Cottagers had let both the federal government and the Band Council know that they feel strongly that they have a legal interest in the buildings and that the buildings should not be entered or used in any way unless the dispute is resolved or all parties agree to the access or use.

Cottagers remained willing and anxious to discuss potential resolutions with the federal government and the Band Council.

Cottagers received further reports of vandalism and that several cottages had been broken into. Lawyers for Indian Affairs and the Band, the Band's property manager and Cape Croker police were notified of the reports. Police confirmed that several doors had been kicked in.

On July 27, 2006, the Chippewas of Nawash held an election. Chief Ralph Akiwenzie replaced Chief Paul Nadjiwan and several new council members replaced the majority of the former councilors.

A letter of April 11, 2006 from the Department of Indian Affairs informed the Chief and Council of the Chippewas of Nawash that cottagers would rely on clauses from the lease for notice regarding the end of leasing and an opportunity to remove buildings. Indian Affairs stated its position to the Chief and Council that the cottagers should be notified and given reasonable opportunity to remove improvements (e.g. cottages and other fixtures). Another 7 ½ months passed, following that letter, with Indian Affairs continuing to lead cottagers to believe that they were negotiating a lease. 

Further correspondence on  September 19, 2006, from the Department of Justice to the legal counsel for the First Nation stated that the government felt obliged to advise the cottagers of the First Nation's position on ownership of the cottages. STILL, no one conveyed the information to the cottagers until Indian Affairs sent its December 1, 2006 letter. The letter was sent one month AFTER the First Nation blocked access to the cottages.

On August 30, 2007, a brief of documents further supporting cottagers' claims for compensation was submitted by the cottagers’ legal counsel to the Department of Justice, legal counsel for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The process to further support compensation claims had been agreed upon with Indian Affairs. The Department had agreed to review and respond to the brief within 6 weeks.

YEAR 2

November 2007
November 1 marks one year since a gate was shut and locked blocking access to the cottages. The Hope Bay cottagers' group planned a demonstration in front of the Toronto office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to protest one year of lack of action towards a resolution of the Hope Bay situation. The cottagers allege that mismanagement by Indian Affairs has led to the fiasco at Hope Bay and that the federal government needs to be accountable for it.

Cottagers have been attempting unsuccessfully for one year to be able to resolve the situation with other parties.

After one year, cottagers have no leases, no access, no cottages, no compensation.

Lease agreements had been between the cottage owners and the Crown, administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Indian Affairs has not made any settlement proposal, has not agreed to compensate any of the cottagers and has not agreed to pursue any binding process to determine compensation, effectively forcing the cottagers into litigation if they want compensation for their cottages.