Article Summary : The article discusses the historical context and current issues surrounding annuity payments promised to First Nations under various Treaties in Canada. These annuities, originally valued at $4 or $5 per year, have not been adjusted for inflation or changes in living standards since the Treaties were signed between 1850 and 1906. The article highlights the disparity in the value of these payments over time and the recent legal actions taken by First Nations and individuals to challenge and update these annuities.
From coast to coast, Canada entered into many Treaties with First Nations to share the land. As part of these Treaties, Canada promised to provide an annual payment to each individual member of the First Nation. These payments are called “annuities”. All of the numbered Treaties contain a promise for annuities, as do the Robinson treaties, and the Upper and Lower Cayuga payments.[1] Most of these Treaties provide for a payment of $4 or $5 per year. Approximately 600,000 people are eligible to receive annuity payments.[2]
When these Treaties were signed between 1850 and 1906, $5 was valuable – particularly when . In 1850, the Hudson Bay Company sold flour for 3 cents per pound; $5 would purchase 167 lbs of flour.[3] Today, $5 buys around 5 lbs of flour.[4] To use a more recent example, in 1910, $5 could buy almost 63 lbs of beef, enough to feed 10 people for one month. Today, by the same metrics, $5 purchases 1.5lbs of beef, enough for one person for three days.
Despite these changes in value, Canada continues to make payments of exactly $4 or $5 per year. The annuities have never been updated to account for inflation or changes in standards of living.
Many First Nations have expressed concerns about Canada’s failure to update annuity payments over the years, but the issue has gained broader public attention as a result of the litigation of the Robinson treaties. The Robinson Huron plaintiffs settled their litigation with Canada for $10 billion, and the Robinson Superior plaintiffs took their case to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court came down hard on Canada, saying that Canada’s breach of the Treaty was “egregious” and left the Anishinaabe with an “empty shell of a treaty promise.”[5]
Now, many law firms are bringing cases to challenge annuities promises in other Treaties. Unlike litigation for the Robinson Treaty, which involved a specific clause for sharing profits, litigation for the Numbered Treaties focuses just on bringing the annuities payments in line with the value of $5 as it was at Treaty.
Some of these annuities cases are being brought by First Nations, and others by individuals as class actions. The class action approach means one person controls the litigation on behalf of all the individual people who are beneficiaries of the Treaty, regardless of which Nation each person belongs to. Recent case law suggests that Nations should be bringing these actions, not individuals.[6]
JFK Law LLP has launched annuities claims on behalf of several First Nations in Alberta and Ontario. We have brought litigation to seek damages for the past and to force Canada to update annuities payments into the future. Depending on the province and its rules on limitation periods, the Nation may also bring a Specific Claim for damages from Treaty-signing to present. Because the cases our similar, we are able to use cost-sharing mechanisms to keep the cost of bringing these claims low for our clients, and our engagement in multiple claims in different jurisdictions allows us to stay ahead of developments in the law in this fast-developing area.
——–
[1] https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1595274954300/1595274980122
[2] ev_fnia22_1658235482867_eng
[3] James Morrison, The Robinson Treaties of 1850: A Case Study. Report prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, August 1996. Exported from CD-ROM For Seven Generations: An Information Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, at 96-98.
[4] https://www.londondrugs.com/products/rogers-all-purpose-flour-unbleached-25kg/p/L0198387?utm_medium=productfeed_MHLSF&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=surfaces&gStoreCode=19&store=19&gQT=1
[5] Restoule, para 11
[6] Chief Derek Nepinak and Chief Bonny Lynn Acoose v. Canada, 2025 FC 925