- SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO, Nov 18/10: Reasons for Decision – Brantford v. Mountour, Haudenosaunee Development Institute (judge orders end to lawlessness, demands for illegal development fees, and rejects claim for ownership/possession)
[…] The developer of the Hampton Inn was also told that an application fee of $3000.00 was required and if HDI [Haudenosaunee Development Institute] approved the project, the title of the land would be assigned to HDI in exchange for a long term lease and that annual development fees would be levied. The fee was not paid and the site was shut down regularly. Mr. Detlor representing HDI demanded a fee in the amount of $7000.00 from Kingspan. This fee was not paid and theire were on-going work stoppages, in spite of an interim injunction being issued. Kingspan eventually abandoned its project in Brantford. This evidence is uncontradicted by the respondents.
 On the evidence before me I find as a fact that a number of these protests have led to violence, threats and intimidation against workers, protestors wearing masks, barricades being built by the respondents at a work site. Public roads were obstructed, a number of the respondents trespassed on private property and prevented entry to property over public roads. I find that in September 2008 the respondent Ruby Montour told P.C. Coombe that the arrest of some of her people “…was going to start a war…there will be blood spilled before this is over.
Affidavit of P.C. Coombe, Sworn Nov. 7, 2008.
 In my view the City will suffer irreparable harm, if that has not already occurred, if this situation is allowed to continue. I find as a fact, on the evidence before me, that the economy of this small city is at risk; the employment of members of the community are likewise at risk; all as a result of the City being unable to regulate development, provide a conflict free environment for investment, employment and the raising of families, and the inability of the City to ensure to local residents and the investment community that the rule of law prevails.
 For more than 150 years the Six Nations did nothing to indicate to innocent third-party purchasers that there was any problem with title to their lands. Property has been bought and sold over that time period. The Six Nations did commence a claim in 1995 against the federal and provincial governments seeking compensation but never for return of the land. Still there was no notice to private landowners, when that action was commenced or after, of any problem with their title. […] It was not until this case commenced that that the Six Nations claimed to have the right to control the activities of private landowners on the basis that the private land within the City of Brantford belonged to the Six Nations. I conclude such an argument must fail.”
- National Post, Nov 19/10: Judge orders halt to native protests in Brantford
- VoiceofCanada feature: Caledonia Lawsuits, item C1
- VoiceofCanada, March 19/10: Some “historical context” about imaginary land claims and treaty rights (link to ‘Holmes Report’ stating Six Nations has no claims to land in Brantford + other court decisions re illegal occupations)