ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
— AND —
David Goosens and 2768466 Ontario Inc
Before Justice of the Peace M A Cuthbertson
Heard on 5 May 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on 12 June 2026
Malleson, Michael counsel for the prosecution
Riley, Veronica for the defendants
Land, Lorraine………………………………………………..for the Saugeen First Nation
Kahgee, Randall………………………………………………for the Saugeen First Nation
Guirguis, Cathy……………………………………………….for the Saugeen First nation
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CUTHBERTSON:
1The defendants jointly faced the following 2 charges under the Ontario Heritage Act (in summary):
(1) Count 1 – During the period beginning on or about November 9, 2022 and ending on or about November 11, 2022, at or near 6 South Rankin Street, Town of Saugeen Shores (Southampton), knowing the site is an archaeological site, did commit the offence of altering the site when a licence to carry out the activity had not been issued, contrary to Sec 48(10 paragraph 2, thereby committing an offence under Sec 69(1)© of the act; and
(2) Count 2 – Did demolish a building or cause a building to be demolished without a permit contrary to section 8(1).
2The property at 6 South Rankin St is part of a much larger area which holds great significance to the members of the Saugeen First Nation. It was part of their traditional homelands lost to them in the 1800s. That loss was felt deeply then and through many generations since. This is a story of how 6 South Rankin St was returned to them.
3In early 2024, the matters came before me for a judicial pre-trial (JPT). Over the next approximately 2 years, I presided over many subsequent JPTs.
4On 5 November 2025, a guilty plea was entered by the numbered company on count 1. The matter was then put over to hear the facts, make findings and for sentencing.
5On 5 May 2026, a sentencing hearing occurred on Saugeen First Nation (SFN) territory at its James Mason Community Centre. The numbered company was found guilty on Count 1 and sentenced. All other charges against the defendants were then withdrawn.
6The approximately 2 years spent working to resolve the defendants’ charges pale in comparison to the millennia of history that defined the underlying issues that led to them. The following provides context to that challenging history.
A) The archaeological site Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi – The River Mouth Speaks or BdHi-2
7After the last ice age ended about 11,0000 years ago and the ensuing waters receded, the first peoples followed. They made their way to the mouth of the Saugeen River where it dumps into Lake Huron (at Southampton) arriving around 3,000 years ago. They were the ancestors of today’s Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), also known as the Saugeen Anishinaabe.
8They became great fishers relying on the abundance of many species in the river and Lake Huron. They farmed the area. They hunted and trapped in the surrounding forests and lands. They lived on both sides of the mouth of the Saugeen river during the warmer months and many moved inland in the winters when the ice covered the water and the harsh winter winds made the shoreline inhospitable. They sought better hunting, trapping and living areas to survive the long winter days. But they always returned.
9The Bruce County Museum has an excellent online power point exhibit called The River Mouth Speaks. It is a source of considerable information about the archaeological site. It is Exhibit 6 of these proceedings (see Appendix A). The “Whose Home and Native Land?” panel of the power point presentation provides history of the activity at the Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi- River Mouth Speaks site:
Government, surveyor, church, and commercial records from as early as 1805 identify who was doing what around the river . During the first half of the 19th century it was the Saugeen Ojibway who were living, fishing, hunting, farming, and burying their dead. And they were hosting travellers and traders. One such visitor was the Wesleyan Methodist minister Peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) who, between July 22 and 25, 1829, made a stop at the mouth of the Saugeen with his party of Native converts.
Minister Jones wrote:
While there, … I went to see an Indian burying ground. There were a number of graves lying east and west, to indicate that the departed spirits had gone in that direction. Euro-Canadian and Metis fur traders frequented the river’s mouth to barter with the resident Saugeen Ojibway. (The River Mouth Speaks – Digital Exhibit, Courtesy of the Bruce County museum and cultural centre. See also the website at River Mouth Speaks - Bruce Museum CA)
10From time to time, warriors left from the site to wage war against other First Nations. As well and importantly for the future of what ultimately became Canada, warriors of the SON joined the great Indigenous military leader and strategist Chief Tecumseh and British General Sir Issac Brock in the War of 1812-14 to hold off the invading Americans.
B) The Treaties
11Prior to 1836, the traditional territory of the SON included all of what we know today as the Bruce Peninsula plus the area in an arc south of Goderich, Arthur, Shelburne and Collingwood. Much of that land was coveted for settlement by newcomers from afar.
12While there had been a trickle of Europeans arriving for hundreds of years, by the early part of the 19th century increasing numbers of settlers arrived seeking their own land to build a homestead and to farm. Many others sought to commercially harvest the bountiful fishing waters or to undertake other commercial enterprises. The rapid increase in population is detailed, as follows:
“In one generation, from 1821 to 1851, the province’s population increased from 210,000 to 952,000.” (See Exhibit 9, Driben Report-Aspects of the Cultural Lives of the Saugeen Anishinaabe, page 240)
13Two closely connected treaties between the British Crown and First Nations’ peoples occurred in 1836. The first was treaty 45 and the second treaty 45 ½.
14The following excerpt at page 244 of the Driben Report (see Exhibit 9) sets the background for those treaties from the perspective of the British Crown:
Sir Francis Bond Head (1793-1895), who was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada in 1835, was of the same mind as those who championed removal in the United States. Anyone familiar with “the Indian character,” Bond Head informed Lord Glenelg (1778–1866), Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, in November 1836, would agree “[t]hat an attempt to make farmers of the Red Men has been, generally speaking, a complete failure …, [t]hat congregating them for the purpose of civilization has implanted many more vices than it has eradicated; and, consequently … [t]hat the greatest kindness we can perform towards these intelligent, simple-minded people, is to remove and fortify them as much as possible from all communication with the Whites.”
15I find these statements by a British leader difficult to reconcile with the actions, valour and contributions of the Indigenous leaders and warriors during the War of 1812-14.
16Treaty Number 45 did not specifically affect the SON but set the stage for what happened in Treaty 45 ½. Background about Treaty 45 is contained in Appendix B. The Ottawa and Chippawa peoples agreed with the proposal by Bond Head and signed Treaty 45. Manitoulin Island became their territory.
17However, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation did not agree and refused to accept the proposal to move to Manitoulin island. Bond Head continued beginning at page 246 of the Driben Report with what he wanted the Saugeen Anishinaabe (SON) to do with their territory.
1836 – Crown Treaty Number 45 ½ – “With tears in their eyes”
The Saugeen Anishinaabe, Bond Head went on to say, also would be well served if they surrendered their territory on the Bruce Peninsula before their fishing grounds were overrun, and their hunting grounds destroyed, and to resort either to the Manitoulin Islands, or to the northern portion of their territory. “My Children, You have heard the Proposal I have just made to the Chippawas and Ottawas,” Bond Head told the Saugeen, “by which it has been agreed between them and your great Father that these Islands (Manitoulin), on which we are now assembled in Council, should be made the Property (under your Great Father’s Control) of all Indians whom he shall allow to reside on them. I now propose to you that you should surrender to your Great Father the Sauking Territory you at present occupy, and that you should repair either to this Island or to that Part of your Territory which lies in the North of Owen’s Sound, upon which proper Houses shall be built for you, and proper assistance given to enable you to become civilized and to cultivate Land, which your Great Father engages forever to protect for you from the encroachments of the Whites. Are you therefore, the Sauking Indians, willing to accede to this arrangement? If so,” Bond Head concluded, “affix your marks to this my Proposal.” (emphasis added)
18The Driben report at page 246 and 248 continued:
Although Bond Head subsequently reported that the Saugeen Anishinaabe “cheerfully gave up this great tract of land” (see Map 2), Methodist minister, Joseph Stinson (1802-1862), who witnessed the proceedings, claimed otherwise. “Sir Francis,” Stinson wrote, “wished the Indians to surrender the whole of that territory to him; they declined; he endeavoured to persuade them, and even threatened them, by telling them that he could not keep the white people from taking possession of their land, that they (the Indians) had no right to it only as hunting-ground etc. They told him they could not live on the Munedoolin [Manitoulin] Island, that they would not go there, that they wanted land they could call their own…. About an hour or two after, Sir Francis called them together again, renewed his proposals, persuasions and threats. The Indians refused. Sir Francis then proposed that if they would surrender to him the territory adjoining the Canada Company’s Huron tract, he would secure to them and their children the territory north of Owen Sound … and build them houses on it from the proceeds of the sales of the territory…. To this purpose … the poor Indians did readily accede with tears in their eyes.”
19With the promise that “… your Great Father engages forever to protect for you from encroachments of the Whites” in hand, Treaty 45 ½ was signed. It caused the Saugeen Ojibway Nation to surrender approximately 1.5 million acres outside the Bruce Peninsula to the British Crown (see Driben Report, Map 2 at page 247). But the SON kept Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi -The River Mouth Speaks site. It was then, as it remains today, sacred ground to the peoples of the SON.
20The Driben Report at pages 250-251 further sets out that only a scant 18 years after Treaty 45 ½ with its promises to forever protect the remaining lands of the SON was signed, the following ominous warning was made by the British leadership, on 2 August 1854:
It was not the first time the Saugeen Anishinaabe had been warned. Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Thomas G. Anderson, likewise had “spared no pains” in describing the band’s plight when he met with Saugeen leaders in August 1854 in an abortive attempt to secure the surrender Treaty Commissioner Oliphant was able secure several months later. “You complain,” Anderson told the delegates from Saugeen and Owen Sound at the conclusion of the meeting, “that the whites not only cut and take timber from your lands but that they are commencing to settle upon it and you can’t prevent them, and I certainly do not think the Government will take the trouble to help you while you remain thus opposed to your own interest - the Government as your guardian have the powers to act as it pleases with your reserve, and I will recommend that the whole excepting the part marked on the map in red and blue be surveyed and sold for the good of yourselves and children. The money once secured in your Great Mothers strong box will be safe to you for future generations, whereas, if it is not sold the trees and land will be taken from you by your white neighbours and your children will be then left without resource.” Coupled with the demographics of the country, the removal of Anishinaabe from their homelands, and the illegal occupation of their territory, such warnings gave the Saugeen Anishinaabe all the more reason to fear encroachment when they met with Treaty Commissioner Oliphant to conclude Crown Treaty Number 72.
21The proposal by Superintendent Anderson was for the SON to give up all of its territory in the Bruce peninsula except for five small reserves, which included Saugeen Reserve #29. The Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi- River Mouth Speaks site was part of the lands that the Crown sought as part of a land surrender. Things did not go well for Anderson. He was not successful.
1854 – Crown Treaty Number 72
22Despite its earlier August failure, the British leadership renewed their efforts on 13 October 1854 (see Driben Report page 273):
Three months later, when Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, and Lord Elgin’s personal secretary, Laurence Oliphant, was greeted by the men who had travelled from their fishing grounds to the mouth of the Saugeen River to discuss the surrender Oliphant was seeking, the encounter was more amiable. “When the chiefs and young men of the different tribes had assembled at the village,” Oliphant recalled, “a grand council was held in the church, to consider the proposals of government, which involved an immense consumption of tobacco, smoked in solid pipes of red clay, with long ornamented stems. The palaver was protracted until the small hours of the morning, and resulted in an interesting exhibition of artistic skills on the part of the chiefs, each one of whom affixed to the treaty his totem, or the representation of the animal which distinguishes his family or clan.”
23More details of this meeting are contained in the Archives of Ontario (see Driben Report, at pages 276-277):
Nor did Oliphant provide time for the delegates to discuss his proposal during the course of the meeting. Instead, Oliphant told the Saugeen that, since the Colonial Government was powerless to prevent unscrupulous whites from occupying Saugeen territory, they had no choice but to endorse the agreement. “He convened a meeting of the chiefs,” Oliphant’s biographer, Anne Taylor, wrote, “and, after hours of speeches and what he described as Fenimore Cooper ‘ughs’, he was successful in persuading them to cede the land to the Government for what was to them a great deal of money. By means of the revenue derived from the sale of this land to whites, he was able to reorganize the whole financial system of the Indian Department, he said, and save £13,000, for which the Minister responsible at Westminster was so grateful that he offered Laurence a small Lieutenant Governorship in the West Indies.” In any event, the five hours Oliphant spent with the delegates on the evening of 13 October 1854 were a far cry from the days, and sometimes weeks, that were set aside during the course of the discussions at the time “to permit the Indians to discuss the proposition among themselves.”
24Reverend David Sawyer, an observer of the meeting, added considerable context as to its appropriateness (see Driben Report, pages 277-278), He wrote:
The fact that Saugeen leaders undoubtedly had been discussing the matter with their constituents since Anderson’s visit compounded the problem; judging by the fistfight that broke out among the delegates, consensus had yet to be achieved, and almost certainly had not been achieved when the agreement was concluded within the hour of the fight. As the Reverend David Sawyer put it: “When Mr. Oliphant, superintendent-general of Indians’ affairs, came … to treat with the Indians for the surrender of their peninsula, he passed by the band at Newash without even letting them know of his arrival, or the object of his visit, and proceeded about twenty miles to Saugeeng.… Perhaps Mr. Oliphant thought it was fair not to allow the Indians to have an opportunity to consult, even among themselves in reference to the surrender of their lands. But the more intelligent part of them happened to think otherwise. And how Mr. Oliphant could suppose the council ‘was attended by the chiefs of the different bands,’ as he states in his Report [to Lord Elgin] is another mystery; for there was not one chief from Colpoy’s Bay that attended on that occasion, from first to last. And from Newash, they did not reach Saugeeng till the next day, after nearly all the arrangements had been completed. They arrived from Newash just in time to sign the treaty; and there is no doubt that many who did sign it would not have done so, if it had been their death warrant. They knew nothing about the value of land, nor of the proper mode of transacting business. But they considered it unfair to hurry the business through, without even giving timely notice to the Indians at Newash and Colpoy’s Bay. John Beaty was the only Indian from Colpoy’s Bay, and only happened to be present; but he never was a chief, nor have we reason to suppose he ever will be, nor did he pretend to have any claim to the land or the annuities of that band. But when asked by Mr. Oliphant if he would represent the Colpoy’s Bay Indians, he of course had no objection, and signed the treaty accordingly.”
The Reverend Sawyer went on to say that, “if the Indians had been permitted to act upon the Resolution adopted by their General Council, October 30th, 1852, and allowed time to call together the chiefs and principal men from the three bands at Newash, Saugeeng, and Colpoy’s Bay, in General Council; and then had Mr. Oliphant laid his business before them, they undoubtedly would have understood the matter much better, and arrangements would have been made much more intelligibly and satisfactorily. But this was not done. The deliberations were hurried through in a summary way. On the arrival of the Indians from Newash it was too late to propose any new arrangements; and two chiefs from the Newash Band could neither read nor write, and understood but few words in English.”
25Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs Laurence Oliphant himself, provided the most telling comment on the efficacy of the tactics he used to gain the signing of Treaty 72. He later wrote:
“…when it comes to matters of substance, it is my opinion that the procedures that were followed in the case of Crown Treaty Number 72 were not in keeping with the practices that were customary in the Great Lakes region at the time.” (see Driben Report at page 280)
26The implementation of Treaty 72 resulted in the loss by the SON of approximately another 450,000 acres of land in the Bruce Peninsula (see Driben Report, Map 1 at page 237).
27As a result of Treaty 72, and after millennia, the ancestors of the SON, who according to archaeological experts, are likely buried within Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi- The River Mouth Speaks site, along with an untold number of culturally and spiritually significant artifacts, would no longer be cared for by their descendants. The home to so many important sacred ceremonies was lost. Again, as in 1836, tears fell, but this time hearts were broken.
C) From 1854 to 2000
28As the world of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation shrank, the world of the Euro-Canadians expanded. The village of Southampton became a busy town as its increasing number of inhabitants built homes, places of worship, businesses and all of the other necessary constructions for their emerging lives. Perhaps inevitably, Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi-The River Mouth Speaks site, on both sides of the Saugeen river, was developed. New homes and cottages were built on the multiple building lots that were created along the lakefront and river’s edge, especially in the post World War II era.
29The site was initially reported to the National Museum in the 1950s and subsequently registered in the Ontario Archaeological Site Database.
D) 6 South Rankin Street-Southampton
30This property is on a rise of land with an unobstructed view of Lake Huron. A home was built on it sometime in the late 1890s or very early 1900s. It is one of the town lots created from the Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi - The River Mouth Speaks site. It sits in a neighbourhood of beautiful homes/cottages.
31In 2010, the local municipality intended to do a sewer line upgrade on Shore Road and Rankin St which are both immediately adjacent to 6 South Rankin Street. An archaeological firm led by Jacqueline Fisher (Fisher Archaeological Consulting) was hired to do a limited excavation of the site before construction began (see Exhibit 14). A small, narrow trench was excavated. Approximately 100,000 artifacts were discovered in that short trench, many of which are housed today in the nearby Bruce County Museum. Culturally, spiritually and historically significant artifacts such as canine burials Iikely from White Dog ceremonies, beaver and bird burials, smashed clay pots, stone and bone tools, weapons including arrow heads, gun flints and ammunition, jewellery and metal scrap/kettles were all part of the treasure trove.
32Excerpts from Victim Impact Statements (VIS) submitted during the court proceedings of 5 May 2026 provide important information on this property. Dr Robert Martin, The Archaeology Coordinator from the Environment Office of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation wrote:
The Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi Site (BdHi-2) is a large, multi-component site that extends over most of the property at 6 South Rankin Street in Southampton, Ontario (also stretching in all four directions into adjoining properties). It is more of a large complex rather than an individual archaeological site. Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi (BdHi-2) is located within the Territory of, and ancestral to, Saugeen First Nation, and is the most significant archaeological site that has been documented in the Territory of the Saugeen First Nation.
Historical records in the Bruce County Museum, based on past archaeological and historical work, confirm the existence of human burials on the 6 South Rankin Street property. (emphasis added)
Beyond the multi-period nature of Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi, the site is of profound ritual significance to Saugeen First Nation. For instance, among the thousands of artifacts that derived from excavations of this area, are materials from ancestral burials, ritual bird and dog burials, and cultural material that clearly signals the spiritual and ritual significance of the site. The presence of ritual dog and bird burials are well-established archaeological indicators of Anishinaabe ritual activity and spirituality, which require special attention, treatment and long-term protection in the same way that an ancestral human burial would be protected and recognized as of very serious importance. (See Exhibit 3-Victim Impact Statement of Dr Robert Martin)
33Chief Conrad Ritchie of the Saugeen First Nation wrote of the deep connection between the members of the SFN, their ancestors and their belief system:
To provide some understanding, I will provide a snippet of the Anishinabek Worldview. The creator placed the Anishinaabek on the earth along with the gift of spirituality. Spirituality is a way of life and belief system that was given to the people and the people continue to see through this lens. Today, we live in two world views, where in one world (western worldview), you must see it to believe it. In the Anishinaabe world view, we believed and therefore it is. There is a clashing of two worldviews.
Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi has great spiritual significance to Saugeen First Nation and is a site which has been heavily used by Anishinaabek since time immemorial. We have always respected the past, present, and future. A people that has forgotten its ancestors is a people that soon starts to forget its descendants. Our people have always had a very deep connection to the stars, moon, sun, the animals, the land, the water, the air, and the fire. To the people, this was always important and came first; spirit comes first in everything we done and continue to do. Our ceremonies/sites (including the ones done at Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi) have always had our older relatives, the earth, the plants, and animals involved in our rituals and acknowledgement for health, healing, protection, and direction, etc. It is our understanding that we are the youngest of creation. The order consists of 1. Earth, sun, moon, stars., 2. The plant nation, 3. The animal nation, 4. The Human Nation. We rely on everything else to take care of us. The ones that came before us including our ancestors buried at Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi are still fulfilling the duties to care and look after us by giving up their lives for us. The flowers that stand up and open to greet the sun every day is honoring the ones before them and are still doing what they were instructed to do. The animals that offer their lives so that we can live are still fulling their instructions and commitment they gave in the beginning which is to care and look after us. (see Exhibit 2, Victim Impact Statement of Chief Conrad Ritchie)
34From the 2010 archaeological work done by Ms Fisher and her firm (Exhibit14), the Victim Impact Statements of Dr Robert Martin (Exhibit 3) and Chief Conrad Ritchie (Exhibit 2), I conclude that the property at 6 South Rankin St contains human remains of the ancestors and all relations (* note the Anishinaabek recognize and acknowledge all Plants, Animals, Winged, finned and four legged as “relations”*) of the SFN. It also contains important artifacts of significance to the SFN. The members of the Saugeen First Nation are deeply connected spiritually and culturally to what lies beneath the surface of this property.
The Destruction at 6 South Rankin Street
35In October 2020, 6 South Rankin Street was purchased by the defendants for $685,000. Ownership of the property was placed in the numbered company. The company caused a report from Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) to be prepared on how to properly remove the old, dilapidated home on the property and construct a new one (see Agreed Statement of Facts, Exhibit 8, para 5).
36Mr. Malleson in his comprehensive presentation of the Agreed Statement of Facts and other relevant evidence, quoted from the ARA Report of further findings of artifacts on that property, he stated:
So shortly before South Rankin Street was purchased by the numbered company — this is from the Archeological Research Associates Report. It’s written, so it says, [As Read]:
Before the purchase, assessments were conducted at 6 Rankin Street as part and proponents internal due diligence process in advance of the real estate transaction and 351 artifacts were observed.
And then there was further — this is looking on the property itself to see how much work would need to be done if the property were to actually be expanded or there would be a substantial renovation. And later in October, a total 7,450 artifacts were observed, and then there was more study in April 2021 where 3,012 artifacts were observed.
37On 9 November 2022, a contractor hired by the company to remove asbestos and demolish the old building, ostensibly in accordance with the safeguards required to protect the site contained in the ARA Report, began work there. Despite the requirements of the ARA Report, no licensed archaeologist nor a SFN representative was present. As well, no appropriate construction matting for heavy equipment to protect artifacts in the ground was set down (see Exhibit 8, para 9) rather a 54,624 lb large excavator and a large dump truck were moved onto the property and up to the building over ½ inch thick plywood.
38Upon learning of the work being done at 8:30 AM, Building Inspector Josh Planz immediately went to the site. He was aware that no demolition permit had been issued. When he arrived at 8:50 AM, ninety percent of the building had been demolished. He issued a Stop Work order at 9 AM. He took photos of the site. (see Exhibit 8 paras 10-12).
39Paragraphs 13-23 of Exhibit 8, set out the defendants’ assertion that a miscommunication with the contractor had taken place. The contractor disputes that position.
40Subsequent to 9 November 2022, the defendants took steps to work with the SFN and the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. In addition, the defendants spent approximately $30,000 to properly remove the excavator from the site. This expense brought its total expense towards compliance with the ARA report requirements to approximately $100,000. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the defendants began the process to donate 6 South Rankin Street to the Saugeen First Nation (see Exhibit 8 at paras-24-27).
The Harm Done by the Destruction at 6 South Rankin Street
41The obvious visible harm was to the building itself as it was 90% demolished. However, the lack of proper construction matting for heavy equipment caused observable soil compaction beneath the plywood. Dr Robert Martin, an archaeologist, opined that some artifacts in the ground were likely damaged as a result of the process employed by the contractor. (see Exhibit 8, para 9(b)).
42At para 28 of Exhibit 28, it is acknowledged by all the parties that the most impacted people in this case are members of the Saugeen First Nation.
43I will turn once again to extracts from the Victim Impact Statements of Dr Robert Martin and Chief Conrad Ritchie to articulate those impacts.
Dr Martin wrote:
Saugeen First Nation, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office, and archaeologists who have worked on the site have sought to protect this sacred place, and to ensure that the existence and importance of this archaeological site was known to the local municipal and county government, relevant Ontario Ministries, past and current land owners whose properties contain parts of the site, and the community at large (for instance, through local museum exhibits, public statements, and media stories).
SON Archaeology is deeply saddened and concerned that this protected site has been desecrated and damaged, and the rights of Saugeen First Nation violated.
(see Exhibit 3)
44The words of Chief Conrad are compelling. He wrote:
The acts to deliberately destroy such a sacred and important site was a complete desecration to our people, the land, the animals, our ancestors, and gives our people the feeling of complete and total disrespect to the original peoples of these homelands, Saugeen First Nation #29. As you know through history, we are a people with special rights guaranteed to us by promises and treaties. However, we also see in history the continued assault and genocide against our people through the Indian Act, the outlawing of our ceremonial practices for many decades, the residential schools, the 60s scoop, the missing and murdered indigenous women, men, girls, boys, and LGBTQ2S+, to name a few. We paid for our special rights through promises and treaties, and the price we paid was exorbitant. We paid for them with our culture, our dignity and selfrespect. We paid until we became a beaten race, and poverty-stricken. Acts such as deliberate destruction of our sacred places such as Ne’bwaakah giizwed ziibi are very traumatic and retriggering. Even in our graves, our people continued to be disrespected and dishonored.
In a country that speaks of the spirit of reconciliation, these actions contradict the statements of reconciliation. Actions that allow destruction of our burial and sacred sites continue to teach society and role model to our children that this is acceptable and further creates division. Our people have nothing to reconcile, but deserve every right to be recognized, honored, and treated as equals as the original people of these homelands, the way the treaties and promises were intended to.(see Exhibit 2)
E) January 2024 to November 2025
45This was the time period when counsel and I met frequently to either resolve or set a trial on the charges. It would be fair to say, the path to the ultimate resolution was not an easy one.
46It became apparent very early on in the process that this was an unique set of circumstances. So much so that, when I asked for related caselaw from any Canadian court to help guide us, counsel could find none. Therefore, in my opinion, it is important that significant events and more detail about the steps taken, as we brought the matter to resolution than I would normally articulate in a decision, be shared for whatever precedential value they may have.
47When Crown and defence counsel were first explaining their concerns and positions, it was unclear to me what interest the Saugeen First Nation may have in the matters. I was assured that the leadership of the SFN and its members had a vested interest in seeing the property transferred to them. I suggested and both counsel agreed that we should invite legal counsel for the SFN to join us in the discussions. They quickly engaged in the process. Having counsel for the SFN at the table was transformational. All three SFN counsel (there was transition of the SFN counsel during the JPT proceedings) brought their intimate knowledge and perspective of the matters with them. They also were in constant contact with the SFN leadership to provide their input, as well. While the Crown, defence, SFN counsel and I all had different roles and responsibilities to uphold, we all very much worked as a team even when we were not fully in agreement.
48A difficult issue was that which originally brought Mr Malleson and Ms Riley before me for a Judicial Pre-Trial. While the defendants had begun the process of voluntarily donating the property to the SFN, counsel were not in agreement concerning the value of the property. The defendants wanted a tax receipt for $1.6 million having paid $685,000 for the property only 2 years earlier. Crown counsel was of the view that this was an inappropriate amount and unfair to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer. The Crown suggested that a trial be set since they could not agree. Defence counsel indicated that if the matter went for trial, the offer to donate the property would be withdrawn.
49I asked SFN counsel, Ms Land what the value of the property was to the Saugeen First Nation. Her response was immediate – she emphatically stated that it was “Priceless” to the SFN, due to its significance.
50Having considered the positions, I asked all counsel what authority existed in the relevant charging Acts or under any other law for either myself as a JPT justice or for a trial justice to intervene between a taxpayer and the CRA. All agreed there was no such authority in law.
51I suggested that if the Crown felt that CRA needed to be aware of the very different purchase and proposed donation valuations for the property, they could write to their legal counterparts at CRA. I expressed the view that CRA is likely very skilled in dealing with these kinds of issues with taxpayers.
52This resolved the valuation issue and allowed us to continue with resolution discussions.
53We all recognized that nothing in the Ontario Heritage Act allowed for an order to be made compelling the transfer of the property by the defendants to the SFN. If the transfer was to happen, it had to be done voluntarily. It was our collective challenge to achieve that goal.
54The process of actually donating the property was exceedingly slow. By mid 2024, we were all optimistic that it could be done in weeks. However, that was not to be the case as the legal steps and documentation required for the transfer were unexpectantly laborious. All of this work was done between defence and SFN counsel behind the scenes. They reported regularly to the rest of us on their progress.
55By late Spring 2025, while much had been accomplished, there was still more work to be done to complete the transfer. Perhaps out of frustration, Crown counsel suggested that we set a trial date. Both other counsel disagreed. They expressed the concern that the setting of a trial date would cause a collapse of the plan to donate the property followed by a resolution.
56By that time, the outline of the proposed resolution had become clear. In addition to the donation of 6 South Rankin Street, there was to be a $30,000 additional donation by the defendant company to the SFN to be used to stabilize the property. In return for that, the Crown agreed to a fine of $3,500 on a plea by the company and the withdrawal of all other charges. All counsel agreed that this would be a joint submission.
57Ms Riley had, on each prior appearance on behalf of her clients, waived their section 11(b) Charter rights to a speedy trial. I enquired if she was prepared to do so again and she agreed.
58I weighed the issues and was persuaded to do what I thought was in the interests of the greater good. I told counsel that the people of the Saugeen First Nation had been waiting 171 years to get this piece of sacred land back that was lost to them as a result of Treaty 72 . With that thought in mind, I stated that I was willing to wait a few more weeks to allow the transfer of the property to be completed. As a result, I declined to set a trial date.
59On 18 August 2025, 6 South Rankin Street was transferred back to the Saugeen First Nation. On 5 November 2025, the numbered company pled guilty before me to Count 1 of the charges. The matter was then put over for a sentencing hearing.
60Counsel and I considered the goals of the sentencing hearing with the obvious one being the completion of all matters before the court. However, we also recognized that the sentencing hearing would be an opportunity to:
(1) celebrate the recovery of the property by the SFN,
(2) show respect to the SFN,
(3) allow the SFN an opportunity to be heard in recognition of the history of Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi - The River Mouth Speaks and the impacts of Treaties 45 ½ and 72; and
(4) take a small step forward towards reconciliation.
61I suggested and counsel agreed that all the goals would best be achieved by holding the sentencing hearing on the territory of the SFN. We were advised by Ms Guirguis (SFN counsel) that the SFN leadership would welcome the Ontario Court of Justice – Provincial Offences Division to do just that.
62Pursuant to s. 15(1) of the Justice of the Peace Act of Ontario, I then made an application to Regional Senior Judge Graham of the West Region, for the sentencing hearing to be held on the territory of the SFN. Permission was granted and 5 May 2026 was scheduled for the sentencing hearing.
F) 5 May 2026- the James Mason Community Centre, Territory of the Saugeen First Nation
63This was a very busy day. At 6 AM, RSJ Graham, all three Counsel and I (the court party) attended along with SFN Elder Ron Root and several members of the community met to attend the lighting of a Sacred Fire and a Smudging ceremony. Three SFN ladies sang in the Anishinaabe language. I spoke with Elder Root after the lighting of the Sacred Fire. He shared stories of the importance of ceremony to the SFN community and their ancestors and how the ceremonial practices were passed down from generation to generation and are part of the core processes for the SFN. It became apparent to me that the Sacred Fire ceremony of 2026 was quite likely the same ceremony as would have taken place at the Ne’bwaakaah giizwed ziibi- River Mouth Speaks site on special occasions since time immemorial. It was a moving and spiritual ceremony. It gave the court party a greater understanding of the cultural significance and importance to the peoples of the SFN of such ceremonies and served as a powerful linkage to their culture. It set the stage for the day, as the court party was sent forward in a good way.
64Meanwhile, the administration team for the Grey/Bruce Provincial Offences Act (POA) completed the setup (they started on 4 May) within the James Mason Centre for the court proceedings. They had the onerous task of ensuring all normal court requirements such as court recordings, other audio/visual systems and the management of exhibits were available. Their work was exemplary as was demonstrated when the sentencing hearing came off without a hitch.
65At 10 AM, the court party attended the 6 South Rankin St site accompanied by Dr Robert Martin, Jacquie Fisher, members of the SFN, enforcement and police officials involved in the matters and media representatives. Ms Fisher and Dr Martin shared information on the history of the site, the events of 9 November 2022 and the related likely damage done to the site. Subsequently, we all attended at the Bruce County Museum to see some of the most important artifacts recovered from the excavation done in 2010. Detailed information on the artifacts was again provided by Dr Martin and Ms Fisher. As we listened, it was as if history spanning thousands of years came alive.
66The sentencing hearing commenced at 1 PM. It was well attended by the leadership and members of the SFN, interested other parties and the media. SFN Elder Rita Root opened (and later closed) with prayers.
67Mr Malleson presented the Agreed Statement of Facts (see Exhibit 1) which I have already set out extensively above. Much additional context detail was provided by way of visual media, including a power point presentation of the River Mouth Speaks digital presentation (see Exhibit 4) .
68Ms Riley read a letter of apology from the defendants which, in part, stated:
I understand that the Saugeen First Nation Community is focussed on core values of pride, perseverance, resilience, health, respect, unity and equality for all. I appreciate that culture and spirituality is extremely important for the members of the Saugeen First Nation.
I recognize that the land located at the municipal address of 6 Rankin Road, Southampton holds significant cultural and historical value to the members of the Saugeen First Nation.
From 2021-2022 we underwent significant archaeological work understanding the significance of this land to the people of the Saugeen First Nation.
However, despite our efforts, a mistake occurred, and the land was affected. I recognize that disturbances to cultural sites is something that is extremely difficult, on many levels, for the people of the Saugeen First Nation. I apologize if this negatively affected the people of the Saugeen First Nation and for any feelings of hurt which were experienced.
I recognize and appreciate the community efforts to protect and honour this land and I am committed to rectifying the situation by participating in a reconciliation. (see Exhibit 5)
69Ms Guirguis made submissions on behalf of the SFN. She noted how the joint submission is in concert with Anishinaabe, Canadian and international law. She noted the following (see transcript page 44):
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to access and to protect sites and artifacts of archeological, historical and spiritual significance; particularly articles 11, 12, 25, 26 and 31, UNDRIP, speak to the right to protect these sites, to control ceremonial objects, that these rights belong to the Indigenous peoples of this land.
And importantly, this declaration, UNDRIP, has been incorporated into Canadian law. It’s been incorporated through federal legislation, it’s been incorporated through our case law. And it is important that we keep this in mind as we move forward in working together to move forward to make sure that these rights are respected.
Saugeen First Nation views this resolution as a positive step forward; it’s a step forward towards healing, towards reconciliation, towards others reconciling with Saugeen First Nation. And at the same time, we need to remain vigilant in the future to ensure that this doesn’t happen again, that we’re not here again.
70An opportunity was provided for members of the community to make oral or written Victim Impact Statements. Chief Conrad Ritchie and Dr Robert Martin quoted from their own statements (as detailed above).
71In final submissions all three counsel urged me to accept the joint submission.
G) Reasons for Decision
72In my oral decision at the sentencing hearing, I stated:
The sentence jointly proposed by all counsel must be considered in the context of all of the circumstances of this matter. Which includes:
a) Harm was done to an important archaeological site which has deeply affected the SFN community.
b) There has been remorse shown by the defendant for the errors made. So much so, that 6 South Rankin St has been returned to the SFN at no cost, with an additional sizeable donation of $30,000 to stabilize the site.
c) In addition, a fine of $3,500 is proposed to be levied against the numbered company.
d) When considered in their totality, the financial consequences* to the defendant are enormous. This will act as a significant deterrent to the defendant and the public at large to ensure future compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act and protection and preservation of archaeological sites.
*(By my estimate the overall financial impact on the defendants is approx. $800,000)
In my view, the joint submission complies with R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, which is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The rationale of that decision is that a joint submission should be accepted where it benefits society, victims, the defendant and all parties involved. I accept that test has been met. Therefore, I will accept the joint submission.
73I now add the following written comments.
A Resolution focused on reconciliation
74I fully recognize that the fine of $3,500 even with the required surcharges and court costs is minor, in the overall circumstances of this matter. Mr Malleson submitted that had it not been for the land donation the Crown would have sought a jail sentence, as permitted in law.
75This resolution and sentence is heavily tilted to the benefit of the SFN as victims, rather than the public purse. In my opinion, the impacts of Treaties 45 ½ and 72 which resulted in the loss of much of the SON historical lands under questionable circumstances, compounded by the harm done to the 6 South Rankin Street archaeological site in November 2022, suggests that an unique resolution approach is warranted, by this court.
76This resolution benefits society by deliberately choosing to emphasize reconciliation by enabling the transfer of the land and the additional donation funds to the SFN rather than solely relying on a high fine.
77Finally, the defendants benefit from acting proactively after the harm was done at the property. In my view, Mr. Goosens deserves credit for taking significant steps and at a major cost to right a wrong. His apology clearly shows his remorse and desire to participate in reconciliation for mistakes made. The guilty plea by the numbered company avoided the need for an expensive trial. Also, the donation receipt for the property (whatever its value) and for the $30,000 stabilization donation likely provided some cost mitigation to the defendant.
78After I sentenced the numbered company, the Crown withdrew all other charges against both defendants.
H) Were the goals of a celebration, showing respect to the SFN, an opportunity for the SFN to be heard, as well as a step towards reconciliation achieved by the Ontario Court of Justice travelling to the SFN territory for the sentencing hearing?
79The answer to these questions are best found in quotations from senior members of the SFN leadership in a news article reporting on the 5 May 2026 sentencing hearing. It was written by Claire McCormack and appeared on 6 May 2026 on the website of baybroadcasting.ca. The story is titled - Heritage Act Case Returning First Nation Land In Southampton Could Set Precedent.
Quotes from former Councillor Audra Roote:
Former band councillor Audra Roote visited the in the aftermath of the demolition the day it took place and was involved in the interventions to do what they could to preserve that site. “We understand the cultural significance of that specific location and the history and connection to our community here at Saugeen and also reflecting that our ancestors occupied that land so that to me was compelling to go and do what we could to protect that site. It’s a celebratory day for us here to have that returned to us,” says Roote.”
Ms Roote continued:
“Slowly but surely, wrongs are being righted and corrected so we’re moving a step in the right direction.”
Quotes from Councillor Theresa Root:
Band Councillor Waabnokwe Theresa Root says, “For us moving forward, today was a really extremely important day for us to be able to be heard and to acknowledge that, because we knew that site was protected. We knew that there was ceremony there and when you think about where our ancestors were– there’s a reason why they were there. That transportation for them using the river was really important and then we get slowly pushed away from that vital transportation route for us and then we uncover, things are getting discovered. It really signifies how important that is.”
She adds, “It’s really important that today— to bring someone to court knowing that something happened there, that they had to answer to that. That’s what so awesome about today, that’s what’s so significant for us, not only for us in Saugeen First Nation but in other First Nations, so hopefully that will discourage other people to do what happened here. That people would be honest and say we have to report this, come clean and be truthful.”
“We want to leave for our future grandchildren and our future people that are coming, that we could mend that relationship with others instead of us being just pushed aside with really no thought to us being here,” says Root, adding she was excited for the hearing Tuesday and feels it’s been an important step towards reconciliation with the First Nation People, “I say miigwetch for today.”
Quotes from Chief Conrad Ritchie:
Chief Conrad Ritchie tells Bayshore Broadcasting News, “I believe that there hasn’t been any kind of case law or anything prosecuted under the (Ontario) Heritage Act, and I believe Saugeen and the Ministry of the Attorney General and the legal counsels, they all worked towards a resolution that was fair and reasonable in restoring that relationship because there was a lot of rupture because of that.”
He adds,”That’s also re-triggering too, to the people here when there has been continuous assault for lack of better words on the people and their identity. So it’s a template perhaps of trying to figure out way to restore that relationship, and I think part of that was achieved today.”
Chief Ritchie continued:
Chief Ritchie says, many other former Chiefs and spiritual leaders and elders in the community carried forward the history and importance of that site. “It’s been a long time coming and it’s a good feeling in the sense of a good step. One of the small steps towards reconciliation,” says Ritchie.
Released: 12 June 2026
Signed: Justice of the Peace M A Cuthbertson
Appendix A
Exhibit List
James Mason Centre
5 May 2026
| Number | Entered By | Description of Exhibits |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crown | Agreed Statement of Facts |
| 2 | Crown | Victim Impact Statement – Chief Ritchie |
| 3 | Crown | Victim Impact Statement – Dr. Robert Martin |
| 4 | Crown | Power point – River Mouth Speaks |
| 5 | Defence | Apology Letter |
| 6 | Crown | River Mouth Speak Exhibition |
| 7 | Crown | Summary of Relevant Evidence |
| 8 | Crown | Draft Report by ARA |
| 9 | Crown | Driben Report |
| 10 | Crown | Fisher Arch Report |
| 11 | Crown | K. Keeshig Statement |
| 12 | Crown | Non-Destructive Analysis |
| 13 | Crown | Son Trial Transcript |
| 14 | Crown | Southampton Short Road Archaeology |
| 15 | Crown | Williamson Report |
Appendix B
What follows is context about Treaty 45:
1836 – Crown Treaty Number 45
Excerpts from the Driben Report beginning at page 244:
The new Lieutenant Governor already had taken steps along these lines. At a treaty council held in Manitowaning on 9 August 1836, three months before Bond Head made his proposal to Glenelg, the Lieutenant Governor had urged the Anishinaabe in attendance to set aside the Manitoulin Islands so that the Indians under his jurisdiction could remove there. The removal was necessary, Bond Head told the assembly, in order to help them to avoid succumbing in an inevitable confrontation with land hungry whites on the mainland. “In all parts of the world farmers seek for uncultivated land as eagerly as you, my red children, hunt in your forest for game [Bond Head told the assembly.] If you would cultivate your land it would then be considered your own property, in the same way as your dogs are considered among yourselves to belong to those who have reared them; but uncultivated land is like wild animals, and your Great Father, who has hitherto protected you, has now great difficulty in securing it for you from the whites, who are hunting to cultivate it. Under these circumstances, I have been obliged to consider what is best to be done for the red children of the forest, and I now tell you my thoughts. It appears that these islands on which we are now assembled in Council are, as well as all those on the north shore of Lake Huron, alike claimed by the English, the Ottawas and the Chippewas. I consider that from their facilities and from their being surrounded by innumerable fishing islands, they might be made a most desirable place of residence for many Indians who wish to be civilized, as well as to be totally separated from the whites; and I now tell you that your Great Father will withdraw his claim to these islands and allow them to be applied for that purpose. Are you, therefore, [Bond Head asked] the Ottawas and Chippewas, willing to relinquish your respective claims to these islands and make them the property (under your Great Father's control) of all Indians whom he shall allow to reside on them….”