How did the Indian Act historically treat Métis identity, and how do the government’s actions and intentions in the 1880s continue to affect registration under the Indian Act today?
Those questions are at the heart of the decades-long struggle by Ms. Sharon Bocchini and her mother, Ms. Bertha Isbister, who have since passed away, to obtain Indian status based on their ancestor, St. Pierre Cook. St. Pierre was a member of the Sandy Bay Band in Manitoba, and he allegedly lost his status as a minor when his grandfather withdrew from treaty in 1886. The case continues today in the name of Sharon’s son, Raymond Bocchini, in his capacity as trustee of his mother’s estate.
On October 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision which had denied status to the descendants of St. Pierre. This divided Court of Appeal decision raised significant questions about the interpretation of historical versions of the Indian Act, including the nature of the government’s actions and intentions toward Métis people in the 19th century.
Historical Background
In response to the Métis-led resistance in what is now Manitoba and in exchange for the extinguishment of “the Indian Title”, the government allotted 1.4 million acres to the children of the Métis through the Manitoba Act.[1] Due to the government’s underestimation of the number of children entitled to land, amid an implementation marred by neglect and delays, it was later provided that these Métis would instead be given scrip, redeemable for $240 or 240 acres of land.[2]
The Indian Act, introduced in 1876, excluded Métis from its scope, defining them as those who had received or were allotted lands or money scrip.[3] In 1879, the government allowed Métis who had previously adhered to treaty and would have been subject to the Indian Act to change their status by withdrawing from treaty and taking scrip.
The case concerns the appropriate interpretation of this withdrawal provision, s. 13 of the Indian Act.
Case Background
Records indicate that, when St. Pierre Cook was approximately 17 years old, his grandfather and head of his family, Mr. Baptiste Spence Sr., withdrew himself and allegedly his grandson St. Pierre, from Treaty No. 1. St. Pierre also later received Métis scrip. Canada argues that these events resulted in the loss of status for St. Pierre and, consequently, his descendants, including Sharon and Bertha. Sharon’s estate argues that St. Pierre was a minor at the time and that the law in force in 1886 did not permit the withdrawal of treaty rights by the head of a household.
Sharon and Bertha’s entitlement to status has been reconsidered several times over the past two decades. They were initially denied registration in 2006, later registered in 2007, then removed from the Indian Register after the Registrar reviewed the historical record in 2009. They formally protested the Registrar’s decision in 2011 and, after those protests were denied in 2014, appealed to the Ontario Superior Court. On May 4, 2021, Brown J. made an order, on consent, setting aside the decisions and remitting them to the Registrar for reconsideration and further investigation.
The Registrar’s new decision was issued on November 16, 2021. He found that Mr. Baptiste Spence Sr. had the power to legally withdraw St. Pierre, then aged 17, as he was the head of the family by virtue of the Indian Act as it existed in 1888. He also rejected evidence that was alleged to be indicative of scrip fraud. Sharon and Bertha appealed this decision.
Ontario Superior Court Decision
In 2024 ONSC 4181, the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of Sharon and Bertha.
The appeal judge found that the Registrar had relied on the wrong version of the Indian Act and that the legislation in force in 1886, as opposed to the 1888 version, did not clearly provide for the automatic withdrawal of minor children when a head of household withdrew from treaty.
The Court also identified a palpable and overriding error committed by the Registrar regarding St. Pierre’s age and criticized the Registrar’s near total disregard of the evidence regarding the likelihood of scrip fraud.
Ontario Court of Appeal Majority
In 2026 ONCA 55, a divided Ontario Court of Appeal overturned that decision and ruled in favour of Canada.
The 2–1 majority found that despite the Registrar’s mistaken reliance on the 1888 version of the Indian Act, he reached the correct interpretation of s. 13 of the Indian Act as it applied in 1886.[4]
The basic question of this appeal was framed as whether the decision of the head of a family to withdraw from treaty resulted in the withdrawal of dependent family members.[5]
Statutory interpretation
According to the majority, the predecessor of s. 13 in the 1876 Indian Act[6] was enacted with the purpose of regularizing the distinction between Métis and First Nations, where the former received land allotments – and later, money scrip – through the Manitoba Act and the latter received treaty benefits, but neither should receive both.
An amendment in 1879 allowed Métis to withdraw from treaty and participate in the Manitoba Act land distribution. In 1884, Parliament removed the requirement that applicants repay the treaty benefits they had received.[7] The majority considered that this withdrawal provision pursued two purposes, which were both advanced by interpreting s. 13 as allowing a head of the family to withdraw the entire family.
For the Métis, it served to facilitate access to the benefits of the Manitoba Act. Children would therefore have to be withdrawn with their parents since the children were the ones entitled to the benefits under the Manitoba Act.[8]
For the government, it served to encourage enterprise by those capable of supporting themselves, thereby lessening the financial burden on the state. That goal would not be achieved if Métis children remained entitled to treaty annuities despite their parents’ withdrawal.[9]
Regarding the context of the provision, the majority relied heavily on the Manitoba Act. It considered how Parliament dealt with Métis in family groups[10] and viewed the family structure as a unit in which one or more persons had authority over the others.[11] It also considered the absence of an age restriction on receiving land, which would create an “anomalous distinction” between Métis if those admitted to treaty could not be withdrawn prior to reaching the age of 18.[12] Further, an age restriction on withdrawal would be problematic given that the government had set a deadline by which all eligible Métis had to apply for scrip.[13]
Findings of fact
As for the appeal judge’s findings regarding the Registrar’s analysis of the evidence, the majority concluded that the errors identified were not palpable and overriding and did not warrant interference by the appeal judge.[14] First, the majority found that the Registrar did consider the evidence regarding the likelihood of scrip fraud. Even though the improvident sale of scrip by St. Pierre to a speculator did “raise questions”, the Registrar was entitled to conclude that St. Pierre and his grandfather were not victims of fraud.[15] Second, the error committed by the Registrar regarding the age of St. Pierre did not affect the outcome of the decision.[16]
Ontario Court of Appeal Dissent
George J.A., dissenting, disagreed on the interpretation of s. 13 of the Indian Act 1886 and the conclusion that St. Pierre Cook was automatically withdrawn from treaty upon the withdrawal of his grandfather, Baptiste Spence Sr. He agreed with the majority on the issues of scrip fraud and St. Pierre’s age.[17]
The dissent’s main disagreement concerned the objective of the withdrawal provision, which was not, in his view, tethered to the objective of the Manitoba Act. On the contrary, the legislative evolution of the withdrawal provision reveals that its objectives were a moving target.[18]
The initial purpose of the withdrawal provision “was to allow ‘half-breeds’ to become ‘whites’, and to reduce the financial burden on the government by eliminating treaty benefits to those ‘capable of taking care of themselves’”.[19] However, the 1884 amendment which introduced formality requirements sought to impose procedural controls and prevent imprudent withdrawals, which were believed to enable people to waste scrip money or land, fraudulently return to treaty and repeat the process to collect both benefits. These two seemingly discordant objectives coexisted, and the court could not favour one over the other to improve the efficiency of the Manitoba Act.[20]
It was also unclear whether withdrawals from treaty would have facilitated implementation of the Manitoba Act given that no evidence reveals that any significant number of people eligible for land grants were under treaty at all. [21] Further, the deadlines to apply for scrip mentioned by the majority were extended several times[22] and not strictly enforced[23].
According to the dissenting judge, the purpose of the withdrawal provision should accord with the Indian Act’s protection of treaty entitlements. Considering the “aggressively paternalistic” nature of that Act, Parliament could hardly have intended to allow minors to opt out of their entitlements and purportedly necessary protections or to allow parents to make such decisions for their children.[24]
The text of the provision, such as the requirements of a signature, two witnesses, certification on oath by the witnesses, and the presence of someone with authority, must be read as connoting a sense of legal capacity of those withdrawing from treaty, which supports the interpretation of an age restriction.[25]
It was also noted that several sections of the Indian Act at the time relied on the age of 21 as a threshold for important decisions, including enfranchisement, which was the legal process for an Indian to relinquish their status.[26]
Lastly, and importantly, the dissenting judge found that, if the provision were found to be ambiguous, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of preserving Aboriginal and treaty rights.
Impact of this Case
This appeal is significant because it concerns the circumstances in which treaty rights and Indian status can be lost and how the courts should interpret the government’s historical intentions regarding Indigenous peoples.
Many families continue to be affected by historical processes such as enfranchisement, treaty withdrawal, and the issuance of Métis scrip. The Supreme Court’s decision may provide guidance on how courts should assess those historical events, including the weight which courts should give to the government’s then-prevailing objectives of reducing the number of people with Indian status and reducing the financial burden of its treaty obligations.
The case may be particularly important because it concerns a minor. The Court will have an opportunity to consider whether a child could lose treaty rights and their ability to be a status Indian because of decisions made by another family member.
More broadly, the decision may clarify the principle that legislation affecting Indigenous peoples should be interpreted in a manner that protects, rather than limits, Aboriginal and treaty rights where the law is ambiguous.
[1] Bocchini Estate v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 55, para 7. See also Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada, 2013 SCC 14, paras 19-39
[2] Bocchini Estate, paras 7 and 98, citing Order-in-Council dated April 20, 1885.
[3] The Indian Act, 1876, S.C. 1876, c. 18, s. 3(3)(e); The Indian Act, S.C. 1951, c. 29, s.12(1)(a)(ii); Indian Act, 1985, s. 6(1)(a).
[4] Bocchini Estate, para 32.
[5] Bocchini Estate, para 4.
[6] The Indian Act, 1876, S.C. 1876, c. 18, s. 3(3)(e)
[7] Bocchini Estate, para. 39.
[8] Bocchini Estate, para. 41-42.
[9] Id.
[10] Bocchini Estate, para 45.
[11] Bocchini Estate, para 46.
[12] Bocchini Estate, para 48-49.
[13] Bocchini Estate, para. 50
[14] Bocchini Estate, para 61.
[15] Bocchini Estate. paras 63-69.
[16] Bocchini Estate, para. 77.
[17] Bocchini Estate, para. 84.
[18] Bocchini Estate, para 110-111.
[19] Bocchini Estate, para 113.
[20] Bocchini Estate, para 121.
[21] Bocchini Estate, para. 119.
[22] Bocchini Estate, para 98.
[23] Bocchini Estate, para 120.
[24] Bocchini Estate, para 126.
[25] Bocchini Estate, para 124-127.
[26] Bocchini Estate, para 136, citing The Indian Act, 1886, s. 83.