This is how bringing a lawsuit works. You need to quantify the “harm” and the amount here is to signify the scale of the harm to the court, not to seek this amount. The lawsuit uses this 100 million amount because of precedent, according to the article, which means similar cases specified similar amounts.
However what they’re asking for is the injunction, not damages; there’s unlikely to be any amount paid. Even there was an awarded amount this would be like a highball offer to start a haggling process, not a final selling price.
The First Nations are asking court to strike down the laws, require the federal and provincial governments to make a series of declarations about how they were passed without respect to First Nations or the constitution, and pay $100 million in damages to the communities.
If they don’t ask for damages the implication is that there’s no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.
“And so, we simply applied precedent. There’s no magic in the dollar amount. It’s a substantial amount because the breach in this case is substantial …”
Villify these folk however you want but they’re the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>
If they don’t ask for damages the implication is that there’s no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.
Reasonable people understand that damage must be caused before restitution, and as you pointed out there is currently zero harm done and a small representation of the Indigenous population in Ontario is trying to sue for 100 million for the bills simply being passed.
“how they were passed without respect to First Nations” is answered simply by “That is how our Government works. Your opinion is heard at election time and the Government does not need to consult you on each individual bill and you don’t get to sue over any of it without damage being caused.”
As I said, I support protesting and challenging the bills in higher courts. But suing for damages when no damage has been caused to create “Sort of a penalty, if you will, on the Crown for failure to act honourably,” is absolutely absurd.
There is a reason why only 9 groups signed on.
Villify these folk however you want but they’re the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>
I am not vilifying anyone. I am pointing out that this is an unsupportable case and gave my reasons why. You are free to challenge my points, and hopefully explain how a case with zero damages shouldn’t be immediately thrown out of court.
Opposing the bills in court is fine, but expecting $100,000,000 in “damages” for the bills simply passing is absurd and unsupportable.
This is how bringing a lawsuit works. You need to quantify the “harm” and the amount here is to signify the scale of the harm to the court, not to seek this amount. The lawsuit uses this 100 million amount because of precedent, according to the article, which means similar cases specified similar amounts.
However what they’re asking for is the injunction, not damages; there’s unlikely to be any amount paid. Even there was an awarded amount this would be like a highball offer to start a haggling process, not a final selling price.
If they don’t ask for damages the implication is that there’s no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.
Villify these folk however you want but they’re the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>
Reasonable people understand that damage must be caused before restitution, and as you pointed out there is currently zero harm done and a small representation of the Indigenous population in Ontario is trying to sue for 100 million for the bills simply being passed.
“how they were passed without respect to First Nations” is answered simply by “That is how our Government works. Your opinion is heard at election time and the Government does not need to consult you on each individual bill and you don’t get to sue over any of it without damage being caused.”
As I said, I support protesting and challenging the bills in higher courts. But suing for damages when no damage has been caused to create “Sort of a penalty, if you will, on the Crown for failure to act honourably,” is absolutely absurd.
There is a reason why only 9 groups signed on.
I am not vilifying anyone. I am pointing out that this is an unsupportable case and gave my reasons why. You are free to challenge my points, and hopefully explain how a case with zero damages shouldn’t be immediately thrown out of court.
Go figure, Indigenous peoples are just as greedy as any other group when it comes to things like money. All too human…