Supreme Court dismisses appeal attempt in treaty dispute over Ontario beach

2 months after the receive ratify of a pop Ontario beach  ithiel town came down in the night, Canada's top court has dismissed an attempt to appeal a lower court's decision that upholds a local Indigenous community's right to ownership of a disputed section of the beach. 

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision released Thursday morning, dismissed a leave to appeal filed by the local municipality and a handful of landowners who both stand to lose property. 

The case involves a disputed section of Lake Huron shoreline located three hours northwest of Toronto that was ceded to the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation in a treaty signed in 1854.

The strip of beach made headlines earlier this summer when the sign that welcomes visitors to the town of Sauble Beach was removed by members of Saugeen First Nation. A new sign reading "Welcome to Saugeen Beach" emerged in its place. 

In 2023, an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling granted the First Nation possession of the section of beach that includes land owned by the Municipality of South Bruce Peninsula and lots owned by a handful of private landowners.

As is usually the case, Canada's top court did not post reasons for its decision to dismiss the appeal. 

"There's confusion," said Kirkland. "It's an iconic sign that people and their grandparents grew up with." 

Kirkland said he's regularly asked what the sign change will mean for the future of Sauble Beach, a town that since the 1920s has drawn crowds of summer tourists to its clear blue waters and pristine sandy shoreline.

Sauble Beach remains the official name of the town.

"People outside of Sauble Beach think that Sauble Beach is not there anymore," he said. "But Sauble Beach is still Sauble Beach. The portion of the sand is what is in question." 

The conflicting claims stretch back to a survey of the beach that was done in 1855, a year after the Crown signed the treaty that set aside reserve lands for Indigenous people in the area.

In its 2023 decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with Saugeen First Nation that the survey incorrectly left out 2.2 kilometres of shoreline from land that was promised them in the treaty. 

In their submission to the Supreme Court, the municipality and landowners argued the lower court decisions will dispossess them of property that was "acquired lawfully and in good faith."

They further argued the Saugeen/Sauble case was a chance for the Supreme Court to clarify how competing interests should be addressed in similar land disputes involving Indigenous groups in Canada.

They say the case-by-case approach is creating a disjointed process.

"[This case] underscores the risks of imposing novel, judge-made solutions that, while well-intentioned, risk sowing uncertainty and unpredictability at the core of Canada's system of private landholding," their submission read.

To have met the bar for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, the case had to be considered of national importance and address issues left unresolved by lower-court decisions.

Nuri Frame, a lawyer representing the Saugeen, argued the case doesn't have wide-ranging implications for other land disputes involving Indigenous groups. Instead, he said, the case is limited to how the language that defined the reserve lands in the 1854 treaty is interpreted.

"This is about whether or not the Crown is able to dispossess the Saugeen of reserve land that was promised to them." 

Kirkland hopes the town and Saugeen leadership can still find a way to work together to share the beach.

He said the previous sign's sudden removal with no advance notice left many in the town feeling blind-sided. Kirkland said he's still waiting for the original sign to be returned.

"We've always maintained that we want to work co-operatively," he said. "We still want to talk and work in conjunction with First Nations." 

Reporter

---

---