JOHN HAWKE'S FEDERAL COURT MOTIONS

Federal Court Litigation

Protecting Treaty Rights, the Environment, and the Honour of the Crown

Welcome to the Federal Court Litigation section of my website.

These proceedings have been filed in the Federal Court of Canada to address issues that I believe affect not only my own constitutionally protected Treaty rights as a Williams Treaties rights holder, but also broader questions of Indigenous consultation, environmental protection, public accountability, and the rule of law.

The cases challenge decisions that permitted major projects and commercial agreements to advance while, in my view, meaningful consultation with affected Treaty rights holders did not occur. They also raise questions about whether governments and public authorities fulfilled their constitutional obligations under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, environmental legislation, and the Honour of the Crown.

These documents are being published to promote transparency and allow community members, journalists, researchers, lawyers, and the public to review the court materials directly.

Please note: These proceedings are currently before the Federal Court. The documents below contain the allegations, evidence, and legal arguments advanced by the Applicant. The Court has not yet determined the merits of these claims.

Williams Treaty First Nations Band Councils Nuclear Deal Decision

Federal Court File File T-3166-26 

NOTICE OF MOTION T-3166-26.pdf

Download PDF • 22.84MB

Summary

This proposed motion seeks an interlocutory injunction preventing the implementation of Band Council Resolutions approving participation in the Darlington New Nuclear Project until the legality of those decisions can be reviewed by the Federal Court.

The application argues that Treaty rights holders were not provided notice or an opportunity to participate before decisions were finalized, despite public communications indicating negotiations had been underway for several years under confidentiality agreements. The motion seeks to preserve the status quo while the Court considers whether the decisions complied with constitutional obligations and principles of procedural fairness.

Issues Raised

• Section 35 Treaty Rights

• Procedural fairness

• Community consultation

• Transparency

• Governance accountability

• Band Council decision-making

• Preservation of the status quo

Darlington New Nuclear Project

Federal Court File T-2232-26

MotionRecord-T-2232-26.pdf

Download PDF • 6.10MB

Summary

This motion seeks an interlocutory injunction to temporarily stop construction activities at the Darlington New Nuclear Project while the Federal Court considers whether the project approvals complied with constitutional and environmental law.

The motion challenges decisions permitting continued construction after the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission removed Regulatory Hold Point 1 and authorized additional construction activities. It argues that construction is advancing before Indigenous rights, environmental impacts, cumulative effects, and consultation obligations have been fully addressed.

Issues Raised

• Duty to Consult under section 35

• Protection of Williams Treaties harvesting rights

• Environmental assessment

• Species at Risk protection

• Fisheries protection

• Irreparable environmental harm

• Constitutional accountability

Supplemental Affidavit

Darlington New Nuclear Project

Supplemental Affidavit of John Hawke - Court File No- T-2232-26 _Merged.pdf

Download PDF • 2.65MB

Summary

This Supplemental Affidavit provides additional evidence obtained after the original application was filed.

It includes publicly released communications concerning commercial negotiations between the Williams Treaties First Nations and governments relating to participation in the Darlington New Nuclear Project. The affidavit states that negotiations were conducted under confidentiality agreements, that commercial arrangements were described as separate from consultation processes, and that the Applicant was not consulted before these agreements became public. The affidavit also references government announcements regarding financing and investment structures. (This document contains the Applicant's evidence and interpretations for the Court to consider.)

Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar Project

Federal Court File T-2719-26

DND RADAR MOTION copy.pdf

Download PDF • 9.30MB

Summary

This motion asks the Federal Court to temporarily halt advancement of Canada's proposed Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar project in Clearview Township until lawful consultation and environmental review have occurred.

The application argues that the proposed radar installation could affect wetlands, species at risk, ecologically sensitive lands, and Treaty harvesting rights within Williams Treaties territory. It also seeks declarations regarding the Crown's constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples before proceeding with major development.

Issues Raised

• Duty to Consult

• Honour of the Crown

• Wetland protection

• Species at Risk

• Environmental assessment

• Treaty harvesting rights

• NORAD modernization impacts

Tiny Township & Wasaga Beach Proceedings

Federal Court File T-1760-26

MotionRecord_CourtFile-T-1760-26.pdf

Download PDF • 10.41MB

Summary

This motion requests interlocutory injunctions preventing further ground disturbance associated with the Tiny Township Administrative Centre Project and former Wasaga Beach Provincial Park lands until the Federal Court determines whether federal decision-makers complied with their constitutional and statutory obligations.

The motion alleges that further construction, excavation, grading, shoreline alteration, and related activities could result in irreversible impacts while questions concerning consultation and environmental protection remain before the Court.

Issues Raised

• Duty to Consult

• Fisheries Act

• Species at Risk Act

• Environmental stewardship

• Williams Treaties rights

• Irreparable environmental harm

Why These Cases Matter

Together, these proceedings raise broader legal questions about how governments, regulators, and public institutions make decisions affecting Indigenous peoples, Treaty lands, and the environment.

The cases ask whether constitutional rights can be meaningfully protected if major projects, commercial agreements, and environmental approvals proceed before consultation is complete and before the courts have had an opportunity to review their legality.

By making these materials publicly available, I hope to encourage informed discussion, increase transparency, and contribute to a broader understanding of Indigenous rights, environmental stewardship, and the constitutional responsibilities owed to Treaty rights holders.

Ahead of the AFN Annual General Assembly: A Constitutional Proposal on Section 35 Consultation

Sunday July 12, 2026

Request for Review – Draft AFN Resolution on Constitutional Consultation and Section 35

Dear Chiefs 

My name is John Hawke. I am Atik Dodem (Caribou Clan), an Anishinaabe Treaty rights holder from Gchimnissing Anishinaabe Aki (Beausoleil First Nation) within the Williams Treaties.

 I am writing to share, for your information and consideration, materials relating to a Federal Court proceeding I have commenced concerning the constitutional duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 

The motion raises broader questions about whether consultation processes affecting major development projects—including projects with significant environmental and long-term impacts on Indigenous lands and waters—are meaningfully engaging the Indigenous rights holders whose Treaty and Aboriginal rights may be affected. 

I believe these issues are relevant to organizations working to advance Indigenous sovereignty, climate justice, environmental stewardship, and the protection of Indigenous rights. Attached are a brief overview of the matter together with my court materials, including my Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Fact and Law, and supporting documents. 

I am not writing to ask your organization to take a position on the litigation. Rather, I hope these materials may be of interest given your work and mandate. If you have any comments, observations, or suggestions after reviewing them, I would sincerely welcome your feedback. 

These proceedings concern the implementation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Honour of the Crown, the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate, federal environmental legislation, and the approval of major projects affecting Treaty territories. 

The following projects are within our projected lands where the Crown has failed its duty to consult where the following will harm our Treaty Rights and Treaty Territory.

Darlington New Nuclear Project Federal Court File No. T-2232-26 This proceeding seeks interlocutory relief concerning the continued construction of the Darlington New Nuclear Project pending determination of constitutional issues relating to consultation. The application raises questions regarding section 35 consultation obligations, regulatory approvals, environmental oversight, and whether major construction should continue while consultation and Indigenous rights issues remain unresolved. 

Department of National Defence – Arctic Over-the Horizon Radar Project Federal Court File No. T-2719-26 This proceeding concerns the proposed Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar Project in Treaty 18 territory. It raises issues regarding the Crown's constitutional duty to consult, potential impacts on harvesting rights, wetlands, species at risk, archaeological resources, and cumulative environmental effects before construction proceeds. 

Tiny Township Administrative Centre and Wasaga Beach Provincial Park Lands Federal Court File No. T-1760-26 This proceeding seeks interlocutory relief relating to the proposed Tiny Township Administrative Centre and the transfer and proposed development of former Wasaga Beach Provincial Park lands. The application alleges failures to fulfill federal responsibilities under the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and section 35 consultation obligations. It also raises concerns respecting endangered species habitat, fish habitat, shoreline ecosystems, Crown land disposition, and the absence of meaningful Crown-led consultation before development and land transfers proceeded. 

Broader Constitutional Questions Collectively, these proceedings raise broader constitutional questions extending beyond the individual projects, including: 

• implementation of the Crown's constitutional duty to consult before irreversible project decisions; 

• protection of Aboriginal and Treaty rights under section 35; 

• federal obligations under environmental legislation, including the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act; • whether consultation occurring after approvals satisfies constitutional obligations; 

• the relationship between federal and provincial decision-making where both governments participate in projects affecting Treaty territories; 

• protection of harvesting rights, environmental stewardship responsibilities, and culturally significant lands and waters. 

I have also prepared a draft constitutional discussion paper entitled Honour of the Crown: Strengthening Constitutional Consultation Standards for Major Projects Affecting Our Territories. In this paper I have included a proposed draft Assembly of First Nations resolution for discussion.

I am writing at this time because the 2026 Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly on Tuesday July 14th 2026 includes dedicated discussions called: Plenary Session on Government Consultation on Streamlining Major Projects Honouring the Duty to Consult and Upholding Environmental Protections.

I respectfully offer the enclosed discussion paper and proposed resolution as a contribution to that broader national dialogue among First Nations. My hope is that these materials may assist Chiefs and their advisors in considering how consultation can continue to evolve in a manner that upholds Section 35, Treaty relationships, the Honour of the Crown, and Indigenous self-determination.

If you believe these materials raise issues worthy of broader discussion, I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak with you or members of your administration and to hear your perspective.

ATTACHED is my Discussion Paper and Proposed Resolution entitled Honour of the Crown" Strengthening Constitutional Consultation Standards for our Territories

HONOUR OF THE CROWN Strengthening Constitutional Consultation Standards for Major Projects.

Download • 1.20MB

Miigwech for your time and consideration.

John Hawke

DO BAND COUNCILS REQUIRE COMMUNITY CONSENT FOR MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS?

By John Hawke

Under the Indian Act, Band Councils generally do not require a community vote or membership consent to approve major capital spending, economic development agreements, equity partnerships, or loan arrangements unless their custom governance laws require it.

However, when those decisions support projects that may adversely affect Treaty Rights, traditional lands, harvesting, hunting, fishing, sacred sites, or Indigenous stewardship responsibilities, the issue extends beyond ordinary governance.

Treaty Rights are collective constitutional rights that belong to the Rights Holders and the Nation—not the Band Council alone. In those circumstances, meaningful consultation with the Rights Holders whose rights may be affected becomes a fundamental question of constitutional legitimacy, the honour of the Crown, and the Nation's own governance.

There is no Supreme Court of Canada case that says Band Councils must always obtain a membership vote or membership consent before making decisions that affect Treaty Rights. Courts have generally treated Treaty Rights as collective rights held by the Nation or community, and consultation obligations are usually directed at the Crown, not the Band Council.

Can an Indian Act Band Council waive, compromise, or effectively authorize impacts on Treaty Rights that belong collectively to the Nation without a mandate from the Rights Holders? The Supreme Court has not given a definitive answer to that question. This unresolved issue is one reason why disputes like the one concerns Rights Holders in this Williams Treaty First Nations Nuclear Deal continue to arise.

This Motion Filed and Issue could potentially help create a new legal precedent—but there are no guarantees. The main legal question is: Can the Crown rely only on an Indian Act Band Council's approval for a project that may affect Treaty Rights, or must the Rights Holders themselves also be meaningfully consulted?

The Supreme Court of Canada has not clearly answered this question. That is why this case could raise an important constitutional issue.

This case would normally start in Federal Court if challenging a federal decision; such as the failure of the Crowns Sec 35 Duty to Consult. If we lose or win and the other side appeals, it could go to the Federal Court of Appeal, and only then could a party ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case. The Supreme Court chooses which cases it will hear.

If a judge agrees that this is a new and important constitutional issue, this case could help clarify the law for Indigenous Nations across Canada.

At its core, our argument is simple:

Treaty Rights belong to the Rights Holders and the Nation—not just the Band Council. If a project may affect those rights, is consulting only the Band Council enough, or must the Rights Holders also have a meaningful voice?

That question has not been definitively answered by Canada's highest court. That is what gives this argument the potential to become an important precedent.

On the Issue of Concerns of this Deal of a Guaranteed Loans. This isn't free money—it's debt. Debt creates dependence, and dependence creates control. Today it's a $700 million loan guarantee. Tomorrow it could be pressure for taxation, privatization, and governance that looks more like a municipality than a sovereign Treaty Nation. That's why so many of us question whether these deals strengthen our Nations—or further integrate us into Canada's political and economic system

#landback #anishinabeknation #indigenousresistance #waterislife #williamstreatyfirstnations #decolonization #dutytoconsult

AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS NUCLEAR DEAL, BEAUSOLEIL FIRST NATION ANNOUNCES ITS "HONORING WATERS THAT CONNECTS US ALL" POWWOW. THESE INDIANS ARE F**KIN HILARIOUS!

I AM NOT A POWWOW INDIAN OR AN INDIAN ACT SELLOUT INDIAN