ROBINSON-HURON TERRITORY—The Chiefs and Trustees of the Robinson-Huron Treaty will not be appealing the recent decision of Justice Frederick L. Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the legal fees of the Robinson Huron Treaty annuities case. However, the lawyers representing the RHTLF have indicated that they will appeal the court’s decision to reduce the fees provided to the legal team (Nahwegahbow Corbiere Genoodmagejig Barristers and Solicitors), but that they will not be seeking a stay to pause the distribution of $487 million, plus interest, as settlement proceeds.
As a result, the funds returned to the RHTLF will be distributed as those funds become available, as though they were part of the proceeds of the settlement reached with Canada and Ontario.
On October 28, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reduced the legal fees that the RHTLF paid its lawyers for $510 million to $23 million. The court found that the lawyers’ fee was neither fair, nor reasonable.
Together with fees paid earlier, the lawyers will receive a total of approximately $40 million, However, the court directed that $487 million, plus interest, be returned to the RHTLF, to be dealt with as proceeds from the settlement reached with Canada and Ontario.
Brian Gover, of Stockwoods Barristers told The Expositor in a statement last week, “In a document filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal, the legal team that obtained a $10 billion settlement for the Lake Huron Anishinaabe from the Ontario and federal governments is challenging a recent lower court decision that slashed legal fees owed to it. The legal team’s work resulted in the First Nations achieving remarkable success before three levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, and has laid the foundation for billions of dollars more to be paid to future generations. The lower court’s decision to drastically reduce the fees owed to the legal team was made despite the fact that 19 of the 21 First Nations approved payment of the fees owed under an agreement negotiated 13 years earlier.”
“In its notice of appeal, the legal team argues that the Superior Court of Ontario decision was marred by erroneous findings and unwarranted assumptions,” said Mr. Gover. “They maintain that the decision also calls into question the continuing validity of partial contingency fee agreements, agreements that can play a vital role in providing access to justice for those with limited resources.”
“In his decision, Justice Fred Myers had high praise for the legal expertise that went into the arduous litigation, which spanned more than a decade. He said the legal team represented the clients, ‘zealously, resolutely, passionately and with extraordinary success,” said Mr. Gover.
“Judge Myers also found that the litigation was novel, immensely complicated and could easily have faltered along the way,” said Mr. Gover. “In fact, a Toronto law firm’s earlier attempt at securing justice for the First Nations had consumed seven years without a claim even being filed. Judge Myers praised the carefully-selected legal team that took over the litigation for their farsightedness in encouraging the creation of the litigation fund, an entity that was essential to the First Nations’ ability to pursue the litigation.”
Two of the 21 First Nations behind the litigation, Garden River First Nation and Atikemeksheng Anishnawbek First Nation, launched the fee review before Judge Myers.
“In appealing, the legal team asserts that Judge Myers failed to appreciate the enormity of the legal risk involved as well as the sanctity of Anishnaabe culture and values,” Mr. Gover said. “The total fee called for a payment of $510 million. This amount was reduced to $255 million after the legal team donated half of the overall amount to the First Nations communities. The donation was earmarked for programs that would solidify the Anishnaabe language, culture and other community services.”
“The Justice Myers decision has thrown those plans into doubt. He reduced the legal fee payable to $40 million, $17 million of which had already been paid out during the course of litigation,” continued Mr. Gover. “Regardless of the stellar legal work, Judge Myers said the negotiated fee was simply too high. His conclusion that the value of what he found to be ‘excellent services rendered’ was 0.4 percent of the value of the settlement for past compensation failed to take into account the fact that the First Nations will benefit from the legal team’s work in perpetuity.”
Mr. Gover said, “The appeal highlights the integrity of the process by which the Litigation Fund selected the legal team and carefully considered the form of their compensation. The appellants reject the notion that the Litigation Fund’s trustees were naïve and ill-informed, a conclusion that echoes centuries of paternalistic attitudes towards First Nations.”
“The notice of appeal emphasizes that the chiefs and trustees involved in reaching the fee agreement were experienced negotiators who drove a hard bargain and were well aware of what they were doing over the entire course of the litigation,” said Mr. Gover. “The lawyers have not sought a stay to prevent the funds returned to the Litigation Fund from being dealt with as proceeds of the settlement reached with Ontario and Canada.”
The notice of appeal indicates that the appellants are asking that “the court make an order: allowing this appeal, to the extent that a contingency fee of $255 million, as agreement between the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund’s Litigation Management Committee and the Appellant legal team, should be affirmed; setting aside the order of the Honourable Justice Myers, dated October 28, 2025; enforcing the partial contingency fee agreement dated June 17, 2011 as fair and reasonable, or in the alternative, fixing a higher quantum meruit amount in accordance with applicable principles; and such further or other relief as council may request and this honourable court may permit.”
The notice of appeal states that it addresses four errors committed by the application judge. “First, the application judge erred in finding the partial contingency fee agreement was champertous ‘from the outset.’ This finding equated a high contingency fee with unlawful champerty without applying the established legal criteria. As a result, the application judge ignored or substantially undervalued the overriding purpose of contingency fees in general, which is to provide access to justice.”
“Second, the application judge erred in finding that the partial contingency fee agreement was unfair on the basis that the chiefs did not know that which was unknowable at the time they entered into the agreement. In doing so, the application judge failed to apply the legal principle that the fairness of a retainer agreement must be assessed at the time the agreement is made,” the appeal notes.
“Third, the application judge erred in finding that the partial contingency fee agreement is unreasonable. The application judge reached this conclusion despite acknowledging the legal team’s extraordinary work and success on their client’s behalf, solely because the application judge deemed the risk assumed by the legal team to be to low to justify the fee sought. The application judge erred by limiting this consideration of risk to the legal teams’ financial risk, to the exclusion of all other forms of risk the legal team assumed. In the result, the application judge failed to take a holistic approach to the assessment of reasonableness and weigh all relevant factors and instead treated the legal team’s financial risk as determinative. The application judge’s approach to this issue was contrary to binding appellate authority.”
“Fourth, the application judge erred in his quantum meruit assessment by arbitrarily doubling the legal team’s billable fees rather than conducting the required contextual and holistic analysis of all relevant factors,” the appeal notice reads. “The mechanical approach adopted by the application judge led him to arrive at an unprincipled conclusion about the fail value of the legal services rendered by the legal team, one that does not reasonability reflect the complexity of the case, the responsibility assumed by the legal team, the importance of the matter to the client, the results achieved and the client’s reasonable expectations.”
On October 28, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reduced the legal fees that the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund (RHTLF) owed to its legal team. The RHTLF will continue to focus on negotiations with the Crown regarding the annuity augmentation promise of the Robinson Huron Treaty.
