South Bruce Peninsular - A Big Ouch for Hope Bay - Comments

Further thoughts

Dan O. — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:00:30 -0500

As much as the situation in Hope Bay may seem unfair the first nations in this area have dealt with land claims in a peaceful manner. The claims for Sauble Beach or fishing rights may not make everyone happy but they were settled. The public can still use Sauble Beach. They can still fish the waters. Hopefully the first nations will see what we have done and not follow our example by overfishing. As a portal of what could be happening take a look at the following web site:

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/

It's brutal for both sides.

Dan O.

Interesting Reading

Dan O. — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:35:04 -0500

I'm not a lawyer and the more articles I read on this subject the more conflicting stories I find. After googling a few of the phrases the following article came up on lease law:

http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=8472

"Four Principles
Commercial property lawyers need to be aware of the following fundamental principles of real property law relating to ownership of leasehold improvements:

quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit ("whatever is fixed to the freehold of land becomes part of it"). Thus, buildings constructed and fixtures placed on leased land become part of the freehold property of the landlord, leased to the tenant.
The landlord and tenant cannot by agreement change this result, which occurs automatically by operation of law.
The parties can, however, make an agreement regarding the rights in buildings or fixtures effective only as between themselves. Such an agreement will not affect the rights of third parties.
Once a building has become affixed to the land and therefore the property of the landlord, the landlord may grant or convey the building or an interest in it to someone else, and the land may be owned separately from a building on the land."

Was the lease with the first nation or the federal government? Did the first nation originally agree to lease the land?

Dan O.

Hope Bay Article

vinylgirl — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:48:37 -0500

Hmmm. . . although not a huge outlay for the Hope Bay Cottager's, there definitely were minimum building requirements for the cottages on the leased land.

Just thought I would update.

Here is a copy of the article, for those who haven't seen it:

Cottagers claim buildings are theirs; Group coy about plans to go to court

BILL HENRY
Local News - Thursday, January 11, 2007 @ 08:00

Cottage buildings at Hope Bay still belong to the families who built them, a
spokeswoman for 70 families forced from their summer homes on leased First
Nation land said Wednesday.

Karen McCulloch would not say if the cottagers plan a legal challenge. "Our
first hope still is for a meeting to sit down and work things out."

But neither Chippewas of Nawash leaders nor Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada officials have responded to the cottagers' numerous requests for both
more information and a meeting.

Most of the 70 families have collected their furniture and other property
from the cottages as ordered in a Dec. 1 letter from INAC. But they haven't
given up on buildings the First Nation now claims as part of the reserve,
McCulloch said.

"We really would like to know from the First Nation, do they want to
discontinue leasing? Do they want us out on a permanent basis? If they don't
want us out on a permanent basis, then I don't know why we're moving,"
McCulloch said Wednesday.

"It's just so hard and so frustrating because we don't know."

The cottagers believe leases that expired in 1993 remain in force through an
overholding clause, she said.

Those leases with INAC direct that tenants receive 12 months notice if the
land is to become unavailable for cottage rental purposes. They also give
cottagers the right within 30 days to remove any buildings they erected on
the leased land, after which they would become the property of the Crown.

Instead, and despite years of INAC assurances - one in an e-mail as recently
as last November - that negotiations toward new leases were proceeding, the
cottagers in a December letter from INAC were abruptly ordered out and given
until Jan. 31 to collect their belongings.

INAC spokesman Brock Worobel said Wednesday the federal government does not
have a position on cottage ownership, and he would not discuss terms of the
expired leases with INAC on behalf of the First Nation land holders.

"The First Nation is of the opinion that the cottages are theirs," Worobel
said. "We do not have a position on who owns the cottages and that needs to
be decided in a court of law."

McCulloch said the cottagers believe they own the buildings and most have
retained the same law firm.

"Cottagers aren't giving up. They're moving their belongings to be
co-operative in the process and protect the things that are important to
them, but the cottagers still maintain that they own the buildings," she
said.

Worobel also said a senior INAC official is preparing a response for the
cottagers' lawyer to their requests for a meeting, but he did not know what
that response would be.

"What we're waiting for is the First Nation to signal to us if they are
willing to hold a redesignation vote in the spring," he said.

Worobel could not say why there was not 12 months notice that the property
would be unavailable, nor opportunity to remove buildings as set out in the
leases with INAC.

"At this point the legalities of the lease need to be decided upon in a
court of law," Worobel said. "The ownership and the leasing and all of that,
we do not have a position on."

Nawash Chief Paul Nadjiwan was unavailable Wednesday. The chief has
consistently declined comment on Hope Bay Subdivision.

The only public indication of the band's position has been through a
statement to the media released early in December.

"The First Nation will be assessing the land and fixtures as soon as
possible," the statement said. "Over the winter the band and council hopes
to consider future use or possible designation of the lands. And decisions
on this matter will be based on what the band council and the First Nation
believes is in our best interest."

McCulloch said the cottagers have no idea what that really means for them
and the buildings they've invested in.

One summer resident spent $46,000 on a 384 sq. ft. addition finished in the
spring of 2005. Another added a $30,000 porch and siding in the fall of
2005, completed last spring. A family spent close to $40,000 on an addition
completed last July.

All were approved by band officials with no indication the tenants' hold on
the property would end, McCulloch said.

The Hope Bay Subdivision's waterfront cottages are on scenic Chippewas of
Nawash land at the north end of the First Nation.

The property was first designated for leasing in 1965, with the first
five-year leases issued in 1968, then 20-year leases in 1973. Both required
the vacationers to invest in buildings with the expectation the lease
holders would own the buildings, McCulloch said.

The 1968 lease required "that the lessee agrees to construct a dwelling
house on the demised land with a minimum area of 480 square feet in floor
space."

The 1973 lease required lease holders to build a structure worth at least
$5,500 within three years.

The last of the leases expired in 1995 and the designation of the reserve
land for leasing also expired that year and has not been renewed.

The Nawash community voted in 2005 to again designate the land for leasing
under terms of The Indian Act, but a new band council and chief elected in
July that year did not confirm the vote, an INAC spokeswoman said in
December.

Although the future of the leases has been uncertain since 1995, throughout
that time INAC officials have assured cottagers new leases were coming. Some
residents were at one stage shown draft copies of a lease extending to 2015.

A 1998 letter from Richard Chong, then Ontario director of lands and trusts
services for INAC, advised cottagers that although their leases were
expired, they were each considered "an over holding tenant" as negotiations
continued.

Until 2005, the tenants continued paying their $1,500 annual lease fee to
INAC and a $500 yearly maintenance fee for garbage collection, fire
protection and other services to the First Nation. McCulloch said during
that 10 years, relations remained cordial, people made cottage improvements,
some sold buildings to new tenants and there was every indication throughout
that new leases were in the works.

That changed last spring, when the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation posted
no trespassing signs and would not allow cottagers on the land without new
temporary six-month permits for a $3,300 fee. Those expired Oct. 31.

With the history of delay towards a new lease, the knowledge that each year
their tenancy always continued without it, amiable relations always with the
First Nation and the INAC assurances new leases would eventually come,
cottagers assumed they would have cottage access again in 2007 - until the
Dec. 1 letter.

"Perhaps we were naive, but everything we were told led us to believe that
they're still working on an agreement and that it will be coming," McCulloch
said. "We really did believe when we were told that a new lease agreement
was being worked on that it in fact would at some point be worked out and
presented to us."

I was really surprised that the

wayne tanner — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:16:31 -0500

I was really surprised that the local fire department wasnt extremely busy when that announcement and vacate order came through. I guess not everybody in that sort of situation, and the parrellels are there, prefers the Russian scorched earth policy... "scorched earth" or "Leave it as you found it" either way I was surprised. But the thing I can't figure out with no facts other than what I read in the paper was the D.P's were apparently told not to talk to reporters, and didnt ,,by whom and what carrot or big stick were they (the government) waving to convince people who were slugging furniture from their cottages into Uhauls to stay quiet. INAC (government) or the local chief has no authority over those moving out, so what would convince someone in that situation not to vent to the nearest microphone. If it were me the microphone would need a scrubbed down and disenfected after I was done cuz I would be spitting with every word.
well to all a merry xmas from Jewel Bridge road and to all a good night

If it was your land.......

Dan O. — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:21:15 -0500

And a third party leased it out for you without your consent I would suspect that the cottagers should be going after the people that arranged the leases not the landowners for compensation.

It's a delicate situation in that the first nations have a valuable resource and the ability to produce a steady income without harming the environment. On the other hand if this isn't handled correctly it could collapse the value of other leased lands. Why would anyone make improvements or even maintain a property if they knew it would be lost at lease end? Partial compensation from the first nations would be an excellent good will gesture.

As for the foreign nation concept. It's a two way street that is full of potholes in both directions.

Dan O.

Ex-pat Tennancies: Same All Over.

garym — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:32:30 -0500

It isn't likely what anyone wants to hear, and it's not an excuse, but I think it is worth a footnote of sanity to remember how most nations have long histories of similar abrupt treatments of foreign nationals, regardless whether they are tennants or landholders. When you hold property in a foreign nation, you do so typically because of the vastly reduced cost compared to the same holdings in your own nation, but let's grow up and face obvious facts, such holdings are not without risk.

The Sun Times typically wants to fuel discord between our peoples by bold-typing the seeming slight being doled to the cottagers, and given that slant, it isn't surprising the Chippewa foreign office is reluctant to comment, but what Bill doesn't say is how this same situation occurs regularly in Mexico and Central America, the middle-east, throughout Asia and Africa, and I have heard of many cases in Europe, and as for Oz, just check out the hoops you'll need to hop just to land a freakin' job there!

As for the demand that properties be of minimum value, and man wouldn't that be a cool thing to have on the books at the SBP Town Office for some of our absentee landlords? -- smooth move of anti-slum urban planning if you ask me -- but maybe also worth a footnote of balance to add that our own national home-office will not allow foreign landholders rights to even enter the country unless they can demonstrate a minimum bank-balance, and in the case of the HK Chinese, several hospitals were built on the moneys extracted by our immigration policies. On the other side of the equation, tho, because I like a balanced view, lets keep in mind that Britain pretty much threw open the doors to Saudi landowners, and today nearly all the famous landmarks of London are in foreign hands.

The thing to also remember in this particular case, and I can't say for certain it is so but I can say that it is likely, is a great deal of First Nations "foreign policy" is not of their own making, but forced by their Great White Brothers In Ottawa. cf the famous property-tax re-assessments down in Saugeen a few years back, forcing them to up taxes to 'current rates' while the mainstream Sauble ratepayers continued to ride on a political lethargy to do the same on our side of the fence. Oh there was a great hew and cry in the Press, hysteric for-sale signs were more populous than morels, but today? Today our rates finally leaped up to match theirs, and, unnoticed and unannounced by the uninterested mainstream media, the whole issue vanished ... because it wasn't there in the first place.

garym: ict evangelist - musician - whatever

A tidbit

vinylgirl — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:38:11 -0500

I am by no means an expert on land claims or native affairs. . .

From the info I was given, the cottages in question, when built, had to be at least worth a certain value, to be allowed to be erected. (Correct me if I am wrong please)

If this is the case, shouldn't there be a reimbursement to the cottagers? Yes, I realize that they were on leased land, and it can be a crap shoot.

In one place, when native occupation began, because it was leased land, and the cottagers did own the buildings, they were allowed to move their cottages, but were not allowed to cut down any trees to do so (a "nice" loophole. (Yes, again, this is something that I have heard, I haven't researched it).

Just some thoughts. . .

A Big Ouch for Hope Bay

vinylgirl — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:17:58 -0500

I was sent this article from the Sun Times.
I haven't seen any posts regarding this.
Anyone have any views?

Hope Bay cottagers start moving; Future of buildings remains unclear

BILL HENRY
Local News - Wednesday, December 13, 2006 @ 08:00

Families with summer residences on Chippewas of Nawash land at Hope Bay have started collecting their furniture and other property from cottages now claimed as part of the First Nation reserve.

The cottagers were told in registered letters from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada last week they no longer have access to the homes. Some have spent summers there for decades in dwellings they built under conditions of their leases with INAC.

Nawash Chief Paul Nadjiwan would not comment directly on the issue Friday.

Nadjiwan said he intended instead to send a letter to the editor - which arrived late Tuesday afternoon - responding to a Sun Times news story published last Friday about the cottages.

In his letter, Nadjiwan said the cottagers all understood last spring that permits issued then to allow non-natives on the cottage lots for six months would expire Oct. 31 and they must remove their belongings and vacate the cottages then.

Nadjiwan also said any leases in past years were strictly between the cottagers and the federal Crown, not with the Nawash band.

"The First Nation has never been a party to a lease, contract, permit, or agreement with any of the former cottagers for the use of reserve land," Nadjiwan wrote.