Law360 Canada ( July 26, 2024, 12:59 PM EDT) -- Appeals by Appellants and Cross-appeals by the Anishinaabe of Lake Huron and Lake Superior (Respondents) from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal which granted in part the appeals from a Stage One proceedings and dismissed the appeals from a Stage Two proceedings. The Respondents entered into separate Treaties with the Crown, the Robinson-Huron Treaty and the Robinson-Superior Treaty, providing for the cession of a vast territory in exchange for, among other things, a perpetual annuity to the Anishinaabe. Both Treaties contained an augmentation clause stating that the annuities were to be increased over time if the ceded lands produced an amount that would allow the Crown to increase the annuity without incurring loss. The annuity, which reached four dollars in 1875, has not changed since. Each Respondent instituted an action. The actions were joined together and divided into three stages. The appeals concerned Stage One and Stage Two. Stage One involved the interpretation of the Treaties and Stage Two considered defences of Crown immunity and limitations. In her decision on Stage One, the trial judge held that the Crown had a mandatory and reviewable obligation to increase the Treaties' annuities when warranted by economic circumstances. In her decision on Stage Two, the trial judge held that Crown immunity and provincial limitations legislation did not operate to bar the claims. The majority of the Court of Appeal stated, among other things, that the honour of the Crown obliged the Crown to increase the annuities as part of its duty to diligently implement the Treaties. It unanimously ruled that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown was under an ad hoc fiduciary duty regarding the implementation of the augmentation clause. The appeals from the Stage One proceedings were granted in part and the appeals from the Stage Two proceedings dismissed. The Appellants appealed on several grounds, including the appropriate standard of review for the interpretation of the Treaties and the proper interpretation of the augmentation clause. The Respondents cross-appealed on the question of the Crown’s fiduciary duties....