The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Brantford accepts $125,000 injunction deal By Jim Windle BRANTFORD -According to documents obtained by the 1\vo Row Times, on March 3rd, 2014, a group of Six Nations land de- fenders charged in the Brantford injunction case have made the City of Brantford a settlement of- fer of $175,000 in connec- tion with the Brantford ,Injunction case. That case stemmed from construc- tion site closures through protests by Six Nations land protectors in 2008- 2009 and a subsequent injunction order. Superior Court of On- tario Judge Harrison Ar- rell ruled that Ruby and Floyd Montour, Clive Gar- low, Charlie Green, David Martin, Hazel Hill and the HDI, John Doe, Jane Doe, persons unknown, along with HDI lawyer Aaron Detlor were to pay the city costs of $375,000, includ- ing interest to date. Ruby and Floyd Mon- tour, Hazel Hill and Ar- ron Detlor initiated court proceedings in an attempt to have two municipal by-laws, upon which the injunction was based, set aside. The court dismissed that defense and the by- laws and subsequent in- junction were upheld. Monday night, in an in-camera meeting with city solicitors, Brantford Council was advised to accept the offer. The offer was significantly higher than the amount city so- licitors realistically ex- pected to get, given the fact that all of the named persons in the court or- der, except Aaron Detlor, live on reserve and do not have holdings off reserve that would be available to them to recoup these costs under the Indian Act. Both Brantford's law- yers and staff admitted Monday that they held out "faint hope" that Brant- ford would be in a position to recover very little if any of the costs awarded by the court. "The Appellants' offer comes as a surprise," lead solicitor Kimberly Far- rington told city council. Hill was being inves- tigated to determine if she had any off-reserve holdings or if she. was willed any after her hus- band, Dick Hill's recent death. A judgement-debt- or examination of Detlor was undertaken in which Detlor claimed that "all of his · assets are situated on reserve and, thus, are 'untouchable."' A house he owned in Toronto was sold in 2013 and the as- sets from that were now on reserve as well. Monday night, Brant- ford Council considered three possible courses of action to retrieve at least some of the legal expens- es incurred to date. One was to accept the offer to settle. 1\vo was to present them with a counter offer to try and get the settle- ment amount increased. And the third was to consider continuing with Brantford's efforts to col- lect the full $375,000 from Detlor and/or Hill. City Solicitors ad- vised Council that by making a counter offer the appellants might take their $175,000 offer off the table, forcing the City to continue paying for le- gal costs and collection efforts. The City was also advised that collection would be difficult at best, citing section 89 of the Indian Act which states, "the real and personal property of an Indian or a Band situated on a re- serve is not subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a Band." They were also ad- vised that an Indian's sal- ary is personal property and may be protected. Chasing the appellants real ability to pay the amount ordered by the courts may have also been a futile, and costly ven- ture. It is not known at this time who will pay the $175,000, the appel- lants as a whofe, Detlor or Hill personally, or the HDI from funds collected through their negotiating efforts with developers made on behalf of the peo- ple of Six Nations, who, ac- cording to the Indian Act, are untouchable anyhow. The City has accept- ed the offer and will be requesting full payment within 30 days. However, questions remain. When the 1\vo Row Times contacted Ruby and Floyd Montour about the deal, they said that they "know nothing of any offer being made." When one considers the leading role that Ruby and Floyd have played in standing up for Six Nations land rights in Brantford, the fact that they have not been kept in the loop is troublesome to say the least. One of the premises of the HDI is consulta- tion and what is obvious here is the complete lack of transparency concern- ing this settlement offer. Brantford's lawyer, Kim- berly Farrington, was herself surprised that an offer was made to settle as they had held "faint hope" any monies would be re- covered. Having the City of Brantford able to collect funds from the HDI is not fundamentally different than the City collecting funds from the Haudenos- aunee Confederacy Coun- cil itself. How and why is this being allowed to happen? The precedent set forth here could feasi- bly cripple Six Nations' efforts to protect its in- terests on lands across Brantford and the Haldi- mand Tract if a municipal corporation can pass laws to effectively circumvent treaty rights, the Federal government's Indian Act and our own structures of governance. The big question that is as yet unanswered, is who really made this offer and under what authori- ty?