UPDATE: Ontario Superior Court adds two schools to agreement

August 31, 2011 Here’s the decision, Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General).

Ontario Superior Court of Justice Adds Two Schools To Residential Schools Settlement Agreement

Stirland Lake and Cristal Lake have been added to the already 130+ number of schools that have been identified and listed under Schedules “E” or “F” of Canada’s Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

Analysis

72 The addition of a school depends on whether the school meets the criteria set out in s. 12.01(2) of the Agreement:

12.01(2) The criteria for adding an institution to Schedule “F” are:

a) The child was placed in a residence away from the family home by or under the authority of Canada for the purposes of education; and,

b) Canada was jointly or solely responsible for the operation of the residence and care of the children resident there.

73 The Stirland Lake and Cristal Lake schools were built for the specific purpose of providing education in a residential school setting to Indian students. The responsibility for the education of those students at the time rested with Canada. The schools, although not constructed with monies provided by Canada, were created pursuant to agreements between Canada and the NYP, through which Canada financed the operation of the schools.

74 The schools were in remote locations. Canada had final say as to the individual students who were eligible to attend and provided transportation to and from the schools for those students. Education officials from Indian Affairs regularly inspected the schools and reported back to their superiors and to the parents of the students. Canada authorized NYP to provide both routine and emergency health services for the students. Concerning emergency health care, NYP was given a blanket consent to take such action as was necessary for the health and welfare of any child enrolled in the Institutions. Federal fire officials conducted periodic inspections of the residences.

75 Canada specified the standards to be maintained with respect to the education of the students and generally, the curriculum that was to be offered. Canada required that the schools obtain “private school” status from the Province of Ontario for the purpose of accreditation of the students. Although the operating agreements changed over time, the essence of the relationship that endured remained the same throughout. Canada continued to provide funding, financial controls and to wield significant influence in the manner in which the schools were operated, notwithstanding the language in the 1983, 1985 and 1987 Agreements. Simply put, Canada was involved in the operation of the Institutions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the complaint regarding discipline in the school.

76 The Institutions were centered around residences operated for the purposes of education in which Indian students were placed away from the family home by or under the authority of Canada. Based on all of the evidence in the record before me, I can reach no other conclusion than that Canada was “jointly responsible” for the operation of the Institutions and the care of the children resident there.
Conclusion

77 The Institutions satisfy the requirements of Article 12 of the Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Institutions shall be added to Schedule “F” of the Agreement.

78 The Applicants may make submissions as to costs not to exceed three pages in length by August 31, 2011 and Canada’s responding submissions shall be delivered by September 16, 2011. As has been past practice, the submissions may be delivered to me through the office of Court Counsel.

79 In the meantime, I direct the parties to meet with Court Counsel for the purpose of settling the terms of the order that will flow from these reasons.

SOURCE: http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/ontario-superior-court-of-justice-adds-two-schools-to-residential-schools-settlement-agreement/